AIR POLLUTION— 1970
Part 1
HEARINGS
SEFORE ITHB
SUBCOMMIHEE ON
AIB AND WATEB POLLUTION
OF THB
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 3229, S. 3466, S. 3546
MARCH 16, 17, 18, 1970
Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works
n
AIR POLLUTION— 197 O
Part 1
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WOMS
UNITED STATES SENATE
NIKETY-FIEST CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 3229, S. 3466, S. 3546
MARCH 16, 17, 18, 1970
Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-166 WASHINGTON : 1970
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfSce
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.75 f
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia, Chairman
STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware
B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee
BIRCH BAYH, Indiana ROBERT J. DOLE, Kansas
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida
WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., Virginia ROBERT W. PACKWOOD, Oregon
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri
MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska
Richard B. Rotcb, Ohief Clerk and Staff Director
J. B. Hdtbtt, Jr., Assistant Chief Clerk and Assistant Staff Director
Barry Meyer, Counsel
Bailey Gdard, Assistant Chief Clerk (Minority)
Tom C. Jorlino, Minority Counsel
Professional Staff Members: Joseph F. Van Vladricken, Leon G. Billings, Richard D.
Grundy, Stewart E. McClure, Hal Brayman, and Adrien Waller ; and Department
of Commerce Fellow, Walter Planet
Subcommittee on Ant and Water Pollution
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine, Chairman
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware
BIRCH BAYH, Indiana JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee
WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., Virginia ROBERT J. DOLE, Kansas
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri
(H)
CONTENTS
Page
S. 3229, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act 3
S. 3229 (amendment No. 501) 24
S. 3466, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act 26
S. 3546, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act 47
WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS
Monday, March 16, 1970
Boggs, Hon. Caleb : Opening remarks 2
Muskie, Hon. Edmund S. : Opening statement 1
Schaefer, Dr. Vincent J., director. Atmospheric Sciences Research Center,
State University of New York, Albany, N.Y 88
Weiner, Dr. Ruth, president, Colorado Citizens for Clean Air, Denver,
ColoL -- - 68
Tuesday, March 17, 1970
Cohen, Dr. Alexander, Chief, National Noise Study, Bureau of Occupa-
tional Health and Safety, Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare 203
Finch, Robert H., Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, presented by John Veneman, Under Secretary, HEW, accom-
panied by C. C. Johnson, Administrator, Environmental Health Service;
Dr. John Middleton, Commissioner, National Air Pollution Control Ad-
ministration, Environmental Health Service; Dr. Alexander Cohen,
Chief, National Noise Study, Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health;
and Sidney Saperstein, Assistant General Counsel 126
Johnson, Charles C, Jr., Administrator, Environmental Health Service,
Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.- 196
Randolph, Hon. Jennings, a U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia,
and chairman. Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate 125
Wednesday, March 18, 1970
Frechette, Alfred, M.D., statement on behalf of The Association of State
and Territorial Health OflBcers 210
Linsky, Benjamin, P.E., professor in air pollution control engineering.
Department of Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgan-
town, W. Va 250
Tucker, Fred E., manager, pollution control and services. National Steel
Corp. . :_-... 239
ADDITIONAL DATA
Cohen, Dr. Alexander:
Table: "A" weighted sound levels of some noises found in different
environments 204
Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of:
Letter dated March 2, 1970, to Senator Randolph from Creed C.
Black, Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare 112
Table: Estimated potential sulfur dioxide pollution without abate-
ment 172
Letter from Dr. Middleton, with telegrams received by him protesting
alleged lack of consideration given citizen spokesmen to air quality
standards hearings — 394
Answers to questions sent by Chairman Muskie in letter dated April 8,
1970.. ._. .. 345
(in)
IV
JohnRon, Charles C, Jr.:
Table: Air quality control region information relating to standards
and implementation plans for sulfur oxides and particulate matter Page
through March 10, 1970 202
Linsky, Prof. Benjamin:
Chart: Average household customer's monthly price of electricity 252
Chart: Air pollution potential growth and cutback concept chart 257
Table 3-9. — Expected annual control costs relative to capacity and
shipments of industrial process sources 255
Table 33. — Estimated cost of motor vehicle emission control systems,
1968-74 260
Air pollution control law of West Virginia 265
Manpower questions answered 34 1
Muskie, Hon. Edmund S.:
Comparison of provisions of pending legislation 66
Letter dated April 8, 1970, with questions, sent to Secretary Finch,
HEW 193
National Society of Professional Engineers: Statement on S. 3466 113
Randolph, Hon. Jennings:
Environmental quality measures cosponsored by Senator Randolph
in interest of bipartisanship, extract from Congressional Record,
February 17, 1970 128
"Must We Breathe Sulfur Oxides?", by Prof. Thomas K. Sherwood,
M.I.T., from Technology Review, January 1970 183
"Pollution from Combustion of Fossil Fuels, by Paul W. Spaite and
Robert P. Hangebrauck 172
Letter dated April 9, 1970, to Dr. John T. Middleton 190
Appendix to March 17 hearing:
Letter dated March 10, 1970, to Senator Randolph from Frank J.
Ball, director, Charleston Research Center, discussing West-
vaco SO2 recovery process 211
Letter dated April 17, 1970, to Rep. Harley O. Staggers, W. Va.,
from Frank J. Ball, discussing Westvaco SO2 recovery process.. 213
Letter dated March 16, 1970, to Senator Randolph, from Russell
Haden, Jr., president. Ionics, Inc., Watertown, Mass., describ-
ing Ionics/Stone & Webster SO2 removal process 215
Letter dated March 13, 1970, to Senator Randolph, from Joseph
G. Stites, Jr., manager. Air Pollution Control Department of
Monsanto Envirochem Systems, Inc., St. Louis, Mo., describ-
ing their air pollution abatement system 220
Statement of James R. Garvey, president. Bituminous Coal Re-
search, Inc., Monroeville, Pa., made before Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, February 25, 1970 222
Statement of Robert H. Quig, P.E., engineer-utility operations.
Chemical Construction Corps., before the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, February 25, 1970 225
"Modified SO2 System Faces New Test," article reprinted from
Electrical World, December 8, 1969 232
Statement of Stuart Watt, Wellman-Lord, Inc., before the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, February 25, 1970 _ . 234
Abstract paper presented by Stuart G. Watt before National' Air
Pollution Control Association in New York City, June 1969_._ 235
Schaefer, Dr. Vincent J. :
The Inadvertent Modification of the Atmosphere by Air Pollution, by
Vincent J. Schaefer, Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State
University of New York at Albany 102
Some Effects of Air Pollution of Our Environment," by Vincent' J.
Schaefer jqq
Solomon, Neil, M.D., Ph.D., Secretary, Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, State of Maryland : Page
Statement on S. 3466 116
Statement on S. 3229 118
Statement on S. 3546 119
Treshow, Michael; professor of biology. University of Utah: Statement
submitted on S. 3229, S. 3466, S. 3546 114
Wichert, Karl E., Des Moines, Wash.:
Statement re air contamination by exhaust fumes 120
APPENDIX
Questions submitted to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
by Senator Muskie, in letter of April 8, 1970, and subsequent answers by
Department:
Air quality criteria 345
Control technology and development 353
Automotive emission control 360
Standards and enforcement 380
Fuel additives 428
President's Air Quality Advisory Board 436
Noise pollution 437
Personnel and staffing 439
Governmental expenditures 441
AIR POLLUTION— 1970
MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1970
U.S. Senate,
Stjbcommittee on Air and Water Pollution
OF the Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 9 :40 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 4200,
New Senate Office Building, Hon. Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Senators Muskie, Boggs, and Dole.
Also present: Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director;
Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk, minority ; M. Barry Meyer, coun-
sel ; Thomas C. Jorling, minority counsel ; Leon G. Billings and Rich-
ard D. Grundy, professional staff members, and Adrien Waller, staff
member.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
Senator Muskie. The committee will be in order.
At this opening of our hearings on air pollution, I will begin with
a brief statement.
Today the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution begins 10
days of hearings on pending air quality legislation. These hearings
will be held in Washington through Thursday, March 26, and will
continue in San Francisco on March 31 and in Los Angeles on April
1. Additional field hearings may be scheduled.*
During the next 10 days the subcommittee hopes to develop a broad
public record on the need for additional Federal air quality legisla-
tion. The particular bills before the subcommittee represent a major
extension of Federal involvement in air pollution control and will
require an expanded Federal presence as well as additional manpower
and funds.
Today's witnesses will provide the subcommittee with information
on the environmental aspects of the air pollution problem, including
the pollution ramifications of a proposed new technology.
There is no acceptable justification for a policy that controls only
those sources that are easily or conveniently controlled. This pollution
control will require a commitment from each of us — a commitment
to make sacrifices, to spend money, and to give up some technological
comforts and luxuries.
We must not control a source here and a source there and believe
that we can survive with half an effort.
♦Subsequent to this announcement the San Francisco hearing was conducted for the
purposes of S. 2005 and amendments (Resource Recovery). The Los Angeles hearing was
canceled because of urgent business of the Senate. Statements were accepted for the record
for that day.
(1)
We cannot afford to play a constant catch-up game with the quality
of our air.
The bills before the committee today will let us make a whole effort,
control) injr all sources of pollution and discouraging the introduction
into tlie environment of those sources we cannot control.
Tomorrow the subcommittee will hear Secretary Robert Finch of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and his represent-
atives who will discuss the pending legislation as well as the admin-
istrative aspects of the program.
The balance of this week will be taken up by industrial, public and
other witnesses who will discuss the economic, social and health as-
pects of the legislation and of the air pollution problem.
Next week the subcommittee will hear representatives of the legal
profession on the new enforcement authority proposed in these bills
and will sit jointly with the Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Re-
sources, and the Environment of the Senate Commerce Committee,
chaired by Senator Hart, on those aspects of the pending bills which
relate to moving sources of air pollution.
Before we proceed with the witnesses I will recognize Senator Boggs
for his opening remarks.
Senator Boggs ?
OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR BOGGS
Senator Boggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in your wel-
come to the witnesses who will open this very important series of
hearings.
Each of the three bills before us brings the opportunity for signif-
icant advancement in the fight for clean air. I had the honor to co-
sponsor one of the bills, S. 3466. The two other bills were offered by
the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that these bills be included in the record at the
start for purposes of reference.
Senator Muskie. It is so ordered. And following the bills we will
include also the comparison of provisions of the pending legislation.
Senator Boggs. In the past 7 years since its creation, this subcom-
mittee has acted in a most nonpartisan manner in its consideration of
pollution control legislation.
It is my hope that these hearings will provide us with the informa-
tion we need to blend the very best features from each of these bills
and make the 1970 extension of the Clean Air Act an event that will
meet to the fullest extent the demand from across our country for
clean, healthy air.
(The bills and comparison follow :)
91sT CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 3229
IX THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Decembkr 10 (legislative day, Decembeu 0), 1969
Mr. Muskie (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Eagleton, Mr. Montoya, Mr. Ran-
Doi.i'ii, and Mr. Spong) introdiicefl the following bill ; which was read twice
and referred to the Committee on Public Works
A BILL
To amend the Clean Air Act in order to extend the authorizations
for such Act, to extend the provisions of title II relating to
emission standards to vessels, aircraft, and certain a^lditional
vehicles, and for other purposes, and to provide for a study
of noise and its effects.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 TITLE I
4 Sec. 101. This title may he cited as the "Air Quality
5 Improvement Act".
6 Sec. 102. Section 104(a) (2) of the Clean Air Act
7 is amended by striking out "and (B) " and inserting in lieu
8 thereof "(B) part of the cost of programs to develop low
II
2
1 emission alternatives to the internal combustion engine, in-
2 eluding steam, electric, and fuel cells; and (C) ".
3 ' Sec. 103. Section 104(c) of the Clean Air Act is
4 amended by striking out "and for the fiscal year ending
5 June 30, 1070, $45,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
6 "for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $45,000,000,
7 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $125,000,000, for
8 the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $150,000,000,
9 and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $175,000,000".
10 Sec. 104. Section 108(c) of the Clean Air Act is
11 amended in the first sentence by inserting before "a plan
12 for the implementation" a comma and the following: "after
13 further public hearings at least thirty days following the
^"^ publishing of such standards and the proposed plan,".
15 Sec. 105. Title II of the Clean Air Act is amended to
1^ read as follows:
17 "TITLE II-NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
18 AQrp
^^ SHORT TITLE
20 "Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the 'National
21 Emission Standards Act'.
'establishment of standards
2^ "Sec. 202. (a) The Secretary shall by regulation, giv-
^ ing appropriate consideration to technological feasibility
and economic costs, prescribe as soon as practicable stand-
3
1 ards, applicable to the emission of anj' kind of substance,
2 from any class or classes of vesisels, aircraft, commercial
3 vehicles, new nonconnnercial vehicles, vessel, commercial
4 vehicle, or aircraft engines, or new non-commercial-vehicle
5 engines, which in his judgment cause or contribute to, or
6 are likely to cause or to contribute to, air pollution which
'' endangers the health or welfare of any persons, and such
S standards shall apply to such vesisels, aircraft, vehicles, or
^ engines whether they are designed as complete S3'stems or
1^ incoi-porate other devices to prevent or control such pollution.
11 Any such standards shall include requirements with raspect
1^ to the manufacturers' warranty of such systems or devices
1^ necessary for the purposes of this Act.
14 "(b) Any regulations initially prescribed under this
15 section, and amendments thereto, with respect to an}- class
16 of vessels, aircraft, commercial vehicles, new noncommercial
17 vehicles, vessel, commercial vehicle, or aircraft engines, or
18 new non-commercial-vehicle engines shall become efTective
19 on the efTective date specified in the order ])romulo'ating
20 such regulations, which date shall l)e determined l)y the Sec-
21 retary after consideration of the period reasonably necessary
22 for compliance.
2'i "(c) Any such regulations, or amendments thereto,
24 with respect to aircraft, shall not be made efTective until
4
1 determined by the Secretaiy of Transportation to not inter-
2 fere with the safety of such aircraft.
3 "prohibited acts
4 "Sec. 203. (a) The following acts and the causing
5 thereof are prohibited —
6 " (1) in the case of a manufacturer of new vessels,
7 new aircraft, new vehicles, new vessel engines, new air-
8 craft engmes, or new vehicle engines for distribution in
9 commerce, the manufacture for sale, the sale, or the
10 offering for sale, or the introduction or delivery for in-
11 troduction into commerce, or the importation into the
12 United States for sale or resale, of any new vessel, new
13 aircraft vehicle, or new vessel aircraft, or vehicle engine,
14 manufactured after the effective date of regulations under
15 this title which are applicable to such vessel, vehicle, or
16 engine unless it is in conformity with regulations pre-
1"^ scribed under section 202 (except as provided in subsec-
18 tion (b) ) ;
"(2) in the case of an owner of a vessel, aircraft,
commercial vehicle, or vessel, commercial vehicle, or
aircraft engine, the use in commerce of such vessel, air-
craft, vehicle, or engine after the effective date of regu-
lations under this title which are applicable to such ves-
sel, aircraft, or engme unless it is in conformity with
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
2 regulations prescribed under section 202 (except as
2 provided in subsection ( b ) ) ;
3 "(3) for any person to fail or refuse to permit
4 access to or copying of records or to fail to make reports
5 or provide information, required under section 207;
6 " (4) for any person to remove or render inopera-
7 tive any device or element of design installed on or in a
8 vessel, aircraft, or vehicle, or vessel, aircraft, or vehicle
9 engine in compliance with regulations under this title
10 prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser ; or
11 "(5) for any person to remove or render inopera-
12 tive, other than for purposes of maintenance or repair,
13 any device or element of design installed on or in a
14 vessel, aircraft, or vessel or aircraft engine in compliance
15 ^^•ith regulations under this title during the term of its
16 use in commerce.
17 "(b) (1) The Secretary may exempt any new vessel,
18 new aircraft, new vehicle, or new vessel, aircraft, or vehicle
19 engine, or class thereof, from subsection (a), upon such
20 terms and conditions as he may find necessary to protect the
21 public health or welfare, for the purpose of research, in-
22 vestigations, studies, demonstrations, or training, or for
23 reasons of national security.
8
6
1 "(2) A new vessel, new aircraft, new vehicle, or new
2 vessel, aircraft, or vehicle engine offered for importation Ijy
3 a manufacturer in violation of subsection (a) shall be re-
4 fused admission into the United 8tates, but the Secretary
5 of the Treasury and the Secretary may, by joint regulation,
6 provide for deferring final determination as to admission and
7 authorizing the delivery of such a vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or
8 engine offered for import to the owner or consignee thereof
9 upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of
10 a bond) as may appear to them appropriate to insure that
11 any such vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine ^^■ill be brought
12 into conformity with the standards, requirements, and limita-
13 tions applicable to it under this title. The 'Secretary of the
^■1 Treasury shall, if a vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine is
15 finally refused admission under this paragraph, cause dispo-
16 sition thereof in accordance with the customs laws unless it
1''' is exported, under regulations prescribed by such Secretary,
18 within ninety days of the date of notice of such refusal or
19 such additional time as may be permitted pursuant to such
20 regulations, except that disposition in accordance with the
21 customs laws may not be made in such manner as may result,
22 directly or indirectly, in the sale, to the ultimate consumer,
23 of a new vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine that fails to com-
24 ply with appHcable standards of the Secretary of Health,
2-'^ Education, and Welfare under this title.
9
7
1 " (3) A new vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine intended
2 solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the outside of
3 the container and on the vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine
4 itself, shall not he sul)ject to the provisions of subsection (a) .
5 "injunction peoceedings
6 ''Sec. 204. (a) The district courts of the United States
7 shall have jurisdiction to restrain violations of paragraph
8 (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(a).
9 " {h) Actions to restrain such violations shall be brought
10 by and in the name of the United States. In any such action,
11 subpenas for witnesses who are required to attend a district
12 court in any district may run into any other district.
13 "PENAXTIES
11 "Sec. 205. Any person who violates paragraph (1),
15 (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203 (a) shall be subject
1^ to a fine of not more than $1,000. Such violation with re-
1'^ spect to sections 203 (a) (1 ) . 203 (a) (2) , 203 (a) (4) , and
1^ 203(a) (5) shall constitute a separate offense with respect
1^ to each vessel, airciaft, vehicle, or engine.
2^ "certification
21 "Sec. 206. (a) Upon application of the manufacturer,
^^ the Secretary shall test, or require to be tested, in such man-
'^^ ner as he deems appropriate, any new vessel, aircraft, vehicle,
-'■* or engine submitted by such manufacturer to determine
'^'^ whether such vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine confoj-ms
10
8
1 with the regulations prescribed under .section 202 of this
2 title. If such vessel., aircraft, vehicle, or engine conforms to
3 sudi regulations the Secretary shall issue a certificate of con-
4 fonnity, upon such terms, and for such period not less than
5 one year, as he may prescribe.
6 "(b) Any new vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine sold
7 by such manufacturer which is in all material respects sub-
8 stantially the same constmction as the test vessel, aircraft,
9 vehicle, or engine for which a certificate has been issued
10 under subsection (a) , shall for the purposes of this Act be
11 deemed to be in conformity with the regulations issued under
12 section 202 of this title.
13 "(c) Vessels and aircraft and vessel and aircraft engines
1-4 used in commerce and subject to standards promulgated under
15 section 202 of this title shall l)e periodically certified under
16 such procedures as the Secretary may by regulation presci'ibe.
17 "records and reports
18 "Sec. 207. (a) Every manufacturer or owner of a ves-
19 sel or aircraft shall estabhsh and maintain such records, make
20 such reports, and provide such information as the Secretary
21 may reasonably require to enable him to determine whether
22 such manufacturer or owner has acted or is acting in compli-
23 ance with this title and regulations thereunder and shall,
24 upon request of an officer or employee duly designated l)y the
11
9
1 Secretary, j)eniiit sudi oflieer or employee at reasonable
2 times to have access to and coj)y such records,
3 " {^) AH int'ormation reported or otherwise oht^iined hy
4 the Secretary or his representative pursuant to subsection
5 (a) , which information contains or relates to a trade secret
6 or other matter referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the
7 United States Code, shall be considered confidential for the
8 purpose of such section 1905, except that such information
9 may be disclosed to other officers or employees concerned
10 ^vith carrying out this Act or when relevant in any proceed-
11 ing under this Act. Nothing in this section shall authorize the
12 withholding of information by the Secretary or any officer or
13 employee under his control, from duly authorized committees
14 of the Congress.
15 "state standards
16 "Si:c. 208. (a) No State or any political subdivision
17 thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relat-
18 ing to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or
19 new motor vehicle engines subject to this title. No State shall
20 require certification, inspection, or any other approval relat-
21 ing to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle
22 or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the
23 initial retail sale, titling (if any) , or registration of such
24 motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.
12
10
1 "(I)) The Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity
2 for public hearing, waive application of this section to any
3 State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase
4 emission standards) for the control of emissions from new
5 motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines piior to March
6 30, 1966, unless he finds that such State does not require
7 standards more stringent than applicable Federal standards to
8 meet compelling and extraordinary conditions or that such
9 State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures
10 are not consistent with section 202(a) of this title.
11 "(c) Nothing in this title shall preclude or deny to any
12 State or political subdivision thereof the right otherwise to
13 control, regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or movement
li of registered or licensed motor vehicles.
15 "federal assistance in developing vehicle
16 inspection programs
17 "Sec!. 209. The Secretary is authorized to make grants
18 to appropriate State air pollution control agencies in an
19 amount up to two-thirds of the cost of developing mean-
20 ingful uniform motor vehicle emission device inspection and
21 emission testing programs except that (1) no grant shall
22 be made for any part of any State vehicle inspection program
23 which does not directly relate to the cost of the air pollu-
24 tion control aspects of such a program; and (2) no such
25 grant shall be iiiade unless the Secretary of Transportation
13
11
1 has certified to the Secretary that such program is consistent
2 with any highway safety program developed pursuant to
3 section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code.
4 "registration of fuel additives
5 "Sec. 210. (a) The Secretary may by regulation desig-
6 nate any fuel or fuels (including fuels used for purposes other
7 than motor vehicles) , and after such date or dates as may
8 be prescribed by him, no manufacturer or processor of any
9 such fuel may deliver any such fuel for introduction into
10 interstate commerce or to another person who, it can rea-
11 sonably be expected, will deliver such fuel for such introduc-
12 tion unless the manufacturer of such fuel has provided the
13 Secretary with the information required under subsection
!■* (b) (1) of this section and unless any additive contained
1^ in such fuel has been registered with the Secretary in ac-
16 cordance with subsection (b) (2) of this section.
1"^ " (h) For the purposes of this section the Secretary
1^ shall require ( 1 ) the manufacturer of such fuel to notify him
1^ as to the commercial identifying name and manufacturer of
2^ any additive contained in such fuel; the range of concentra-
^^ tion of such additive or additives in the fuel; and the pur-
^^ pose in the use of such additive; and (2) the manufacturer
^■^ of any such additive to notify him as to the chemical composi-
■^^ tion of such additive or additives as indicated by compliance
^'^ with clause (1) above, the recommended range of concen-
14
12
1 tration of such additive, if any, the recommended purpose
2 in the use of such additive, and to the extent such information
3 is available or becomes available, the chemical structure of
4 such additive or additives. Upon compliance with clauses ( 1 )
5 and (2) , including assurances that any change in the above
6 information will be provided to the Secretary, the Secretary
7 shall register such fuel additive.
8 "(c) All mfomiation reported or otherwise obtained by
9 the Secretary or his representative pui"suant to subsection
10 (b) , which infonnation contains or relates to a trade secret
11 or other matter referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the
12 United States Code, shall be considered confidential for the
13 purpose of such section 1905, except that such infonnation
14 may be disclosed to other officers or employees of the United
15 States concerned with caiTying out this Act or when rele-
16 vant in any proceeding imder this title, Nothing in this sec-
1*7 tion shall authorize the withholding of information by the Sec-
18 retary or any officer or employee under his control, from the
19 duly authorized committees of the Congress.
^^ "(d) Any person who violates sul)section (a) shall
21 forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty of $1,000
22 for each and every day of the continuance of such violation,
23 which shall accrue to the United States- and be recovered in
24 a civil suit in the name of the United States, l)rought in
2'^ the district where such person has his principal office or
15
13
1 in any district in wliicli he does business. The Secretary
2 may, ujiun application therefor, remit or mitigate any for-
3 feiture provided for in this subsection and he shall have
4 authority to deteiraine the facts upon all such applications.
5 "(e) Tt shall be the duty of the various United States
6 attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney General of the
7 United States, to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
8 "development of low-emission vehicles
9 "Sec. 211. In order to encourage research and promote
10 the development of low-emission vehicles the Secretary is
11 authorized to —
12 "(1) prescribe special low-emission standards for
13 any class or classes of vehicles or engines and such stand-
14 ards shall pemiit an emission of not more than 50 per
15 centum of the amount of pollutants permitted by stand-
16 ards estalilished pursuant to section 202 for the same
17 class of vehicle or engine;
18 "(2) provide testing procedures to determine if vehi-
19 cles and engines meet such standards ; and
20 '* ( 3 ) certify vehicles or engines meeting such stand-
21 ards as low-emission vehicles or engines for the purpose
22 of this section.
23 "solvents
24 "Sec. 212. (a) The Secretary by regulation may desig-
25 nate solvents, coating materials, organic or inorganic mate-
16
14
1 rials, and products containing any such substance as a con-
2 stituent thereof, either singly or Ijy classes or in combina-
3 tions, which when used in uncontrolled situations, in his
4 judgment, may cause or contribute to air pollution adversely
5 affecting health or welfare; and after such date or dates as
6 may be prescribed by him, no manufacturer of any such
7 product or substance may deliver any such product or sul)-
8 stance into interstate commerce unless such substance has
9 been registered with the Secretary in accordance with this
10 section.
11 "(b) For the purposes of this subsection the Secretary
12 shall require (1) the manufacturer of any product which
13 contains any such substance to notify him as to the commer-
14 cial identifying name and the manufacturer of the solvent,
15 coating material, organic or inorganic material, or other such
16 substance contained in the product; the range of concentra-
17 tion of such substance; the purpose of such substance; and
18 (2) the manufacturer of any such substance to notify him as
19 to the chemical stmcture and composition of such substance
20 as indicated by compliance with clause (1) above, the rec-
21 ommended range of concentration of such substance, if any,
22 and the recommended purpose of such substance. Upon com-
23 pliance with clauses (1) and (2) . including assurances that
24 any change in the above information will be provided to the
25 Secretary, the Secretary shall register such product.
17
15
1 "(c) The Secretary may develop and publish proposed
2 standards, either singly or by classes, for the use of those
3 substances and products that are registered in compliance
4 with subsections (a) and (b) above. The Secretary may
5 from time to time review such proposed standards and make
6 changes therein, taking into consideration increased knowl-
7 edge regarding technology or effects on health or welfare.
8 ''(d) If the Secretary determines that any such sub-
9 stance or class thereof constitutes a substantial and immi-
10 nent danger to the health or welfare of an}^ person, he may
11 promulgate any of the proposed standards for such substance
12 which have been developed and puljlished pursuant to sub-
13 section (c) and he may prohibit the introduction of such
14 substance into interstate connnerce unless it complies with
15 such regulations as he shall promulgate under this sub-
16 section.
17 "(e) If two or more manufacturers, vendors, or dis-
38 tributors of any such substance or product notify the Secre-
1& tary that two or more State, interstate, or local agencies or
20 authorities have estabHshed standards, rules, or regulations
21 applicable to such substance or product and varying from
22 each other in their terms or effects upon the manufacturer,
23 vendor, or distributor, the Secretary may promulgate any of
24 the proposed standards he has developed, and published for
18
16
1 such substance or product under subsection (c) and they
2 shall become elective alter a date established by him.
3 "(f) At any time he shall deem it necessary, the Secre-
4 tary may add additional substances or products to the desig-
5 nations made under subsection (a) , add additional sub-
6 stances or products to those to which proposed standards
7 existing under subsection (c) already apply, or promulgate
8 under subsection (d) or (e) additional standards which
9 have been proposed under subsection (c).
10 " (g) All information reported or otherwise obtained by
11 the Secretary or his representative pursuant to this section,
12 which information contains or relates to a trade secret or
13 other matter referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the
14 United States Code shall be considered confidential for the
1^ purpose of such section 1905, except that such information
1^ may be disclosed to other officers or employees concerned
1''' with carrying out this Act or when relevant in any pro-
1^ ceeding under this Act. Nothing in this subsection shall au-
^^ thorize the withholding of information by the Secretary or
20 any officer or emploj^ee under his control from the duly au-
21 thorized committees of Congress.
^^ "(h) (1) Any person who violates after the efifective
^3 date the provisions of subsection (a), (d),or (e) or regula-
tions promulgated pursuant thereto shall forfeit and pay to
the United States a civil penalty of $1,000 for each and
19
17
1 every day of the continuance of such violation, which shall
2 accrue to the United States and be recovered in a civil suit in
3 the name of the United States brought in the district where
4 'such person has his principal office or in any district in which
5 he does business. The Secretary may, upon api)lication there-
6 for, remit or mitigate any forfeiture provided for in this
7 section and he shall have authority to determine the facts
8 upon all such applic^itions.
9 "(2) It shall be the duty of the various United States
10 attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney General of the
11 United States, to prosecute for the recovery of such for-
12 feitures.
13 "definitions for title II
11 "Sec. 213. As used in this title—
15 "(1) The term 'manufacturer' as used in sections 203,
16 206, and 207 means an}^ person engaged in the manufac-
17 turing or assembling of new vessels, aircraft, or vehicles, or
38 new- vessel, aircraft, or vehicle engines, or importing such
19 vessels, aircraft, vehicles, or engines for resale, or who acts
20 for and is under the control of any such person in connection
21 with the distribution of such vessels, aircraft, vehicles, or
22 engines, but shall not include any dealer with respect to new
23 vehicles or new vehicle engines received by him in commerce.
24 "(2) The term 'vessel' means anv self-propelled water-
20
18
1 craft designed for transporting persons or property on or in
2 water.
3 " (3) The term 'new vessel' means a vessel the e(iuital)le
4 or legal title to which has never heen transferred to an ulti-
5 mate purchaser; and the term 'new vessel engine' means an
6 ensine in a new vessel or a vessel engine the equitahle or
7 legal title to which has never been transferred to the ultimate
8 purchaser.
9 "(4) The tenn 'aircraft' means any self-propelled con-
10 trivance designed for transporting persons or property in the
11 air.
12 "(5) The term 'new aircraft' means an aircraft the
13 e(iuitd)le or legal title to which has never heen transfeiTed
1^ to an ultimate purchaser; and the term 'new aircraft engine'
^^ means an engine in a new aircraft or an aircraft engine the
1^ ecjuitahle or legal title to which has never been transferred to
l'^ the ultimate purchaser.
18 " (6) The term 'vehicle' means any self-propelled
1^ vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a
20 street or highway or on rails, or any vehicle for agricultural
21 use, and the term 'motor vehicle' means only such a vehicle
22 designed for transporting persons or property on a street or
-"^ highway.
"(7) The term 'commercial' means used with profit as
the primary aim.
21
19
1 " (8) The term 'new' as used with respect to a vehiek%
2 motor vehicle or vehicle or motor vehicle engine means a
3 vehicle, motor vehicle, or engine the e(}nitahle or legal title to
4 which has never heen transferred to an ultimate purchaser.
5 "(9) The temi 'dealer' means any person who is
6 engaged in the sale or the distiihution of new vehicles or new
7 vehicle engines to the ultimate purchaser.
8 "(10) The term 'ulthnate purchaser' means, with
9 respect to any new vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or new vessel, air-
10 craft or vehicle engine, the first person who in good faith
11 purchases such new vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine for pur-
12 poses other than resale.
13 "(11) The term 'commerce' means (A) commerce
^'^ hetween any i)lace in any State and any place outside thereof;
1^ and (B) conunerce wholly within the District of Columbia,"
16 Sec. 106. Section 309 of the Clean Air Act is amended
1'^ by striking out "and $134,300,000 for the fiscal year ending
18 June 30, 1970" and inserting in lieu thereof "$134,300,000
19 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $150,0<.)0,0(K) for
20 the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $175,01)0,000 for the
21 fiscal year enduig June 30, 1972, and $200,000,000 for the
22 fiscal year ending June 30, 1973".
23 TITLE II
24 Sec. 201, This title may be cited as the "Noise Pollution
2^* and Abatement Act".
22
20
1 8ec. 202. (n) The Secretary of Health, Education, and
2 Welfare shall establish within the Department of Health,
3 Education, and Welfare an Office of Noise Abatement and
4 Control, and shall carry out through such office a full and
5 complete investigation and study of noise and its effect in
6 order to determine —
7 ( 1 ) effects at various levels ;
8 ( 2 ) projected growth of noise levels in urban areas
9 through the year 2000;
10 (3) the psychological effect on humans ;
11 (4) effects of sporadic extreme noise (such as jet
12 noise near airports) as compared with constant noise;
13 (5) effect on wildlife and property (including val-
14 ues) ;
15 (6) effect of sonic booms on property (including
16 values) ; and
17 ( 7 ) such other matters as may be of interest in the
18 pubfic welfare.
19 (b) The Secretary shall report the results of such
20 investigation and study, together with his recommendations
21 for legislation or other action, to the President and the Con-
22 gress not later than one year after the date of enactment of
23 this Act.
24 (e) In any case where a department or agency of the
25 Government is carrying out any activity resulting in noise
23
21
1 whicli amounts to a public nuisance or is otherwise objec-
2 tionable, such department or agency shall consult with the
3 Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to deteraiine
4 possible means of abating such noise.
5 (d) There is authorized to be appropriated such amount,
6 not to exceed $30,000,000, as may be necessary for the pur-
7 poses of this section.
24
9l8T CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3229
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 18,1970
Keferred to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed
AMENDMENTS
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Montoya to S. 3229, a bill to
amend the Clean Air Act in order to extend the authoriza-
tions for such Act, to extend the provisions of title II relat-
ing to emission standards to vessels, aircraft, and certain
additional vehicles, and for other pui-poses, and to ])rovide
for a study of noise and its effects, viz :
1 On page 13 betw^een hnes 7 and 8 insert the following:
2 ''establishment of STANDAKDS For FUELS
3 "Sec. 211. (a) The Secretary shall, as soon as prac-
4 ticable, prescribe (1) such standards with respect to the
5 composition of fuels of all types as are necessary to protect
6 the public health and welfare and carry out the pohcy of this
7 Act, (2) such rules and regulations as are necessary to pre-
Amdt. No. 501
25
2
1 vent the manufacture or processing for use in the United
2 States of fuels not meeting such standards, and (3) after
3 consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, such rules
4 and regulations as are necessary to prevent the importation
5 into the United States of fuels not meeting such standards.
6 Included with such standards shall be specific methods by
'^ which fuels shall be tested by the Secretary to determine if
S they conform to such standards.
^ "(b) Any person who violates any provision of rules
1^ and regulations prescribed pursuant to this section shall be
11 subject to a fine of not more than $1,000. Each day on which
12 any such violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense.
1^ " (c) All action taken under this section in prescril)ing
14. standards, rules, and regulations shall be taken in conformitj^
15 with the provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating
16 to administrative procedure."
17 On pages 13 through 17, redesignate sections 211
18 through 213 as sections 212 through 214, respectively.
26
9l8T CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3466
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 18,1970
Mr. Scott (for himself, Mr. Ccx)per, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Baker, Mr. Bri.lmon,
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bocujs, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Dole, Mr. Ervin,
Mr. Fannin, Mr. Fong, Mr. Goldwater, Mr. Goodell, Mr. Griffin, Mr.
(iurney, Mr. Javits, Mr. Jordan of Idaho, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Mansfieiji,
Mr. Miller, Mr. Mundt, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Packwood, Mr.
Pearson, Mr. Percy, Mr. Prouty, Mr. Saxbe, Mr. Schweiker, Mr. Sjiitii
of Illinois, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Tower) introduced the follo\vin<j hill ;
whicli was read twice and referred to the Committee on Public Works
A BILL
To amend the Clean Air iVct so as to extend its duration, })r()-
vide for national standards of aml)ient air (jnality, expedite
enforcement of air pollution control standards, authorize
regulation of fuels and fuel additives, provide for improved
controls over motor vehicle emissions. estal)Iish standards
applicalde to dangerous emissions from stationary sources,
and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted b,'/ the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Conr/ress assembled,
3 That this Act may he cited as the "Clean Air Act Amend-
4 ments of 1970".
II
27
2
1 BXTE5NSI0N OF DURATION
2 Sec. 2. (a) The first sentence of section 104 (c) of the
3 Clean Ah- Act (42 U.S.C. 1857b-l (c) ) is amended by
4 striking out ''and" before "for the fiscal year ending June
5 30, 1970," and by inserting before the period at the end
6 thereof ", and such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal
7 year ending June 30, 1971, and for each of the next two
8 fiscal years".
9 (b) Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
10 18571) is amended by striking out "and", and insertmg
11 before the period at the end thereof ", and such sums as may
12 be necessary for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and
13 for each of the next two fiscal years".
14 TESTING OF MOTOE VEHICLES AND ENGINES
15 Sec. 3. (a) Subsection (a) of section 206 of such Act
16 (42 U.S.C. 1857f-5) is amended by strikmg out in the
1"^ first sentence thereof "Upon application of the manufacturer,
18 the" and inserting in lieu thereof "The"; by striking out
1^ "such manufacturer" and inserting in lieu thereof "the manu-
20 facturer"; and by inserting after "not less than one year"
21 in the second sentence thereof " (except as provided under
22 subsection (c) ) ".
23 (b) Subsection (b) of such section is amended by in-
24 serting before the period at the end of the sentence ", ex-
25 cept as provided in subsection (c) ".
28
3
1 (c) Such section 206 is further amended by adding
2 after subsection (b) the following new subsections:
3 "(c) (1) In order to determine whether new motor
4 vehicles or new motor vehicle engines being manufactured
5 by a manufacturer are in. fact constructed in all material
6 respects substantially the same as the test vehicle or engine,
7 the Secretary is authorized to test such vehicles or engines.
8 Such tests may be conducted by the Secretary directly or,
9 in accordance with conditions specified by the Secretary, by
10 the manufacturer.
11 " (2) If, based on such tests conducted on a representa-
12 tive sample of such vehicles or engines, the Secretary deter-
13 mines that such vehicles or engines do not conform with the
14 regulations in efifect on the date the certificate of conformity
15 was issued, he may revoke such certificate and so notify
16 the manufacturer. Such revocation shall apply in the case
17 of any new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines
18 manufactured after the date of such notification and until
19 such time as the Secretary finds that vehicles and engines
20 being manufactured by the manufacturer do conform to such
21 regulations.
22 "(d) For purposes of enforcement of this section, offi-
23 cers or employees duly designated by the Secretary, upon
24 presenting appropriate credentials and a written notice to the
25 manufacturer, are authorized (A) to enter, at reasonable
29
4
1 times, any factory, or other business or estaltlisliuient, for the
2 piii*pose of conducting tests of vehicles or engines coming
3 ofif the production hne, or (B) to inspect, at reasonable
4 times, records, files, papers, and processes, controls, and fa-
5 oilities used by such manufacturer in conducting tests under
6 regulations of the Secretary. A separate notice shall l)e given
7 for each such inspection, but a notice shall not be ro<[uired
8 for each entry made during tlie i)eriod covered by the in-
9 si)ection. Each such insi)ection shall be commenced and conl-
10 pleted with reasonable promptness."
11 (d) The heading of such section 206 is amended to
12 read:
13 "COMPLIANCfE TESTING AND CERTIFICATION"
14 (e) Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of section 203 of
15 such Act (42 U.S.C. 1857f-2) is amended by striking out
16 '*it is in conformity with" and inserting in lieu thereof "such
17 manufacture is covered ])y a. certificate of conformity issued
18 (and in effect) under".
19 (f) The amendments made by this section shall apply
20 in the ease of motor vehicles ami motor vehicle engines man-
21 ufactured after the month in which this Act is enacted.
22 IMPORTATION OF VEHICLES AND ENGINES
23 Sec. 4. (a) Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of sec-
24 tion 203 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1857f-2) is amended by
25 inserting "(in the case of any pei'son, except as provided
30
5
1 l)y iTgiilatioii of the Ser-retary) ," after "commerce, or";
2 and by striking out "United States for sale or resale" and in-
3 sertiug in lieu thereof "United States".
4 (b) The first sentence of paragraph (2) of subsection
5 (b) of such section is amended by striking out "by a manu-
6 facturer" and inserting in lieu thereof "of imported by any
7 i>erson".
8 (c) Paragraph (3) of section 212 of such Act (42
9 U.S.C. 1857f-7) is amended by striking out "The" and
10 inserting in lieu thereof "Except with respect to vehicles or
11 engines imported or offered for importation, the" ; and by add-
12 ing before the period at the end thereof " ; and with respect
13 to imported vehicles or engines, such terms mean a motor
14 vehicle and engine, respectively, manufactured after the efTec-
15 tive date of the regulations issued under section 202".
16 (d) The amendments made by this section shall apply
17 in the case of motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines
18 imported into the United States on or after the sixtieth day
19 following the date of enactment of this Act.
20 REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL
21 ADDITIVES
22 Sec. 5. (a) Subsection (a) of section 210 of such Act
23 (42 U.S.C. 1857f-6c) is amended to read as follows :
24 " (a) The Secret^i-y may by regulation designate any
31
6
1 fuel (which, for purposes of this section, means only fuel
2 intended for use in the transportation of any person or thing)
3 or fuel additive, and after such date or dates as may be pre-
4 scribed by him, no manufacturer or processor of any such fuel
5 or fuel additive may sell or deUver it unless the manufacturer
6 of such fuel or fuel additive has provided the Secretary with
"7 the information required under subsection (c) of this section
8 and unless such fuel or fuel additive has been registered with
9 the Secretary in accordance with subsection (c) of this
10 section."
11 (b) Section 210 of such Act is amended by redesignat-
12 ing subsections (b), (c) , (d),and (e) as subsections (c) ,
1^ (d) , (e) , and (f) , respectively, and by adding after sub-
section (a) the following new subsection :
"(b) The Secretary may, on the basis of information
obtained under subsection (c) of this section or any other
information available to him, establish standards respecting
1ft
the composition or the chemical or physical properties of any
fuel or fuel additive to assure that such fuel or fuel additive
wiU not cause or contribute to emissions which would endan-
21
ger the pubUc health or welfare, or impair the performance of
22
any emission control device or system which is in general use
23
or likely to be in general use (on any motor vehicle or motor
24
vehicle engine subject to this title) for the purpose of pre-
25
venting or controlling motor vehicle emissions from such
32
7
1 vehicle or engine. For the purpose of cairying out such stand-
2 ards the Secretary may prescribe regulations —
3 • "(A) prohibiting the manufacture for sale, the sale,
4 the offering for sale, or the delivery of any fuel or fuel
5 additive; or
6 "(B) limiting the composition or chemical or physi-
7 cal properties, or imposing any conditions applicable to
8 the use of, such fuel or fuel additive (including the maxi-
9 mum quantity of any fuel component or fuel additive that
10 may be used or the manner of such use) .
11 (o) The subsection of section 210 herein redesignated
12 as subsection (c) is amended by striking out 'Tor purposes
13 of this section, the Secretary shall" and inserting in lieu
14 thereof "For the purpose of establishing standards under
15 subsection (b) , the Secretary may require the manufacturer
16 of any fuel or fuel additive to furnish such information as is
17 reasonable and necessary to determine the emissions result-
18 ing from the use of the fuel or fuel additive or the effect
1^ of such use on the performance of any emission control
20 device or system which is in general use or likely to be in
21 general use (on any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine
22 subject to this Act) for the purpose of preventing or con-
23 trolling motor vehicle emissions from such vehicle or en-
24 gine. If the information so submitted establishes that toxic
25 emissions or emissions of unknown or uncertain toxicity
33
8
1 result from the use of tlie fuel or fuel additive, the Secretary
2 may require the submission within a reasonable time of
3 such scientific data as the Secretary may reasonably pre-
4 scribe to enable him to determine the extent to which such
5 emissions will adversely affect the public health or welfare.
6 To the extent reasonably consistent with the purposes of
'^ this section, such requirements for submission of information
S with respect to any fuel additive shall not be imposed on
9 the manufacturer of any such additive intended solely for
1^ use in a fuel only by the manufacturer thereof. Among other
^^ type» of information, the Secretary shall"; by inserting in
^^ clause (2) "the description of any analytical technique
^'^' that can be used to detect and measure such additive in fuel,"
after "above," ; by striking out in such clause "to the extent
such information is available or becomes available,"; by
striking out "clauses (1) and (2)" in the second sentence
and inserting in lieu thereof "the provisions of this subsec-
tion" ; and bv striking out "such fuel additive" in such sen-
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tence and inserting in lieu thereof "such fuel or fuel addi-
tive".
(d) The subsection of section 210 herein redesignated as
subsection (d) is amended by inserting between the first and
second sentences the following new sentence: "The Secre-
tary may disseminate any information, obtained from reports
or otherwise, which is not covered by section 1905 of title 18
34
9
1 of the United States Code and which will contribute to
2 scientific or public understanding of the relationship between
3 the cheniiciil or physical properties of fuels or fuel additives
4 and their contribution to the problem of air pollution." The
^ first sentence of such subsection is amended by striking out
^^ "subsection (b) " and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection
^ (0)".
5 (c) The subsection of section 210 herein redesignated as
^ subsection (e) is amended (1) by adding "or subsection
^0 (b)" after "subsection (a)"; and (2) by striking out
11 "$1,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$10,000".
1^ (f) The amendment made by subsection (e) (2) of this
1"^ section shall be effective with respect to any fuel or fuel addi-
14 tive to which a regulation issued under subsection (a) of sec-
l-'^ tion 210 of such Act or a standard estabhshed under subsec-
16 tion (b) of such section, as amended by this Act, applies.
1'^ NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
18 Hev. 6. Section 107 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-2)
19 is amended to read as follows :
20 "national air QUALITY STANDARDS
2' "Sec. 107. (a) As soon as practicable after enactment
22 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, l)Ut in no event
23 later than the close of the sixth calendar month after the
--4 month in which such enactment occurs, the Secretary shall.
35
10
1 after consultation with ap])iopnate advisory committees and
2 Federal departments and agencies, jjublish in the Federal
3 Kegister proposed regulations estal)lishing nationally ap-
4 plicahle standards of aml/ient air quality for any pollutant
5 or combination of })ollutants which he determines endanger
G or may endanger the puhHc health or welfare, and allow a
7 reasonable time for connnent thereon by interested parties.
8 After considering such comments and other relevant infor-
^ mation. the Secretary shall ])romulgate such regulations
1^^ with such modifications as he deems appropriate. He may
11 from time to time thereafter, by regulation similarly pre-
12 scribed, extend such standards to other pollutants or other-
13 wise revise such standards.
14 "(b) As soon as possible after establishing or revising
15 standards under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, after
16 consultation with ai)propriate advisory committees and Fed-
17 eral departments and agencies, issue to appropriate air
18 pollution control agencies informaticm on those recommended
19 pollution control techni(iues the application of which is
20 necessarv to achieve such standards of air (juality at the
21 earliest practicable time. Such information shall include
22 data relating to technology and costs of emissi(m control.
23 The recommendations shall also include such data as are
24 available on the latest available technology and economic
25 feasibility of alternative methods of ])revention and control
36
11
1 of air i)oIlution. Such issuance shall he announced in the
2 Federal Kegister and copies shall he made availahle to the
3 general puhlic."
4 AIR QUALITY STANDAUDB AND ABATEMENT OF All?
.) POLLUTION
f> Sec. 7. (a) Paragraphs (1), (2), and (:]) of subsec-
'7 tion (c) of section 108 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1857d) are
^ amended to read as follows:
^ " (c) (1) If, after the date on which the Secretary has,
^^ pursuant to section 107, established standards of ambient air
^1 quality and issued recommended control techni(|ues therefor —
^2 " (A) any State or any interstate air pollution con-
1<^ trol agency, within ninety days after such date, files with
the Secretary a letter of intent that it will adopt a j)lan
^'^ (meeting the requirements of sub])aragraph (B) ) within
the thue specified, a desciiption of how it will proceed to
develop the plan (meeting such reipiirements) for the
18
\
arious areas within its jurisdiction, and the lime within
^^ which the plan will be applied to each such area giving
2^ due regard, in setting this order of application of the
plan, to the relative re(|uirements of each area; and
" (B) such State or interstate agency adopts a plan
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of such standards d air (piality, which adoption occurs
-'^ within one hundred and eight>' davs after the filing of
37
12
1 such letter of intent and other material pursuant to sub-
2 paragraph (A) and after public hearuigs held not less
3 than thirty days following" publication of a i)roposed plan
4 for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
5 such standards; and
^ "(C) the Secretary determines that such plan —
7 " (i) includes emission standards, or equivalent
8 measures, and such other measures as may be neces-
9 sary to assure achieving or preserving such stand-
10 ards of ambient air quality within a reasonable time
11 in all areas within the jurisdiction of such State or
1^ interstate agency;
13 " (ii) contains adequate provisions for intergov-
14 emmental cooperation, including, in the case of any
15 area covering part or all of more than one State and
1^ designated by the Secretary, appropriate provision
17 for dealhig with interstate pollution problems ;
18 " (iii) provides adequate means of enforcement,
19 including authority comparable to that in subsection
20 (k) of this section to prevent or deal with air pollii-
-1 tion presenting an imminent and significant cndan-
-- gennent to the public health : and
23 "(iv) provides for revision from time to time
'^^ as may be necessary to take account of revisions of
2'^ such ambient air quality standards or improved on
38
1 o
1 more expeditious inetliods of achieving such staud-
2 ards ;
3 such plan (except with respect to any area for which an
4 extension is granted pursuant to the last two sentences of
5 this paragrai)h) shall he approved by the Secretary. Any
(j revisions of such a plan which are similarly adopted and
7 otherwise meet the requirements of the preceding sentence
8 shall also be approved by the Secretary. For good cause
9 shown, the Secretary may extend, for such period as he finds
10 necessary and appropriate, the one hundred and eighty day
n period referred to in subparagraph (B) with respect to any
12 area or areas under the jurisdiction of the State or interstate
l'^ agency. No such extension may exceed ninety days unless
1-i the request therefor accompanies the material filed pursuant
15 to subparagraph (A) and is in turn accompanied by satis-
1^ factory assurances that the portions of the plan relating to
1^ the areas most in need of air pollution abatement action will
18 receive priority in the development and submission of the
19 plan.
•^^■' " (2) If a State or interstate agency doeg not file a letter
21 of intent and the other mateiial described in paragraph ( 1 )
2- or adopt a plan in accordance with paragraph (1) with
23 respect to any State or portion thereof, the Secretary shall
2^ prepare regulations establishing such a plan for such State
■"^ or portion. Prior to promulgating such regulations, the Sec-
39
14
1 retary ^^hall call a public hearing for the })urpose of receiving
2 testimony from State and local pollution control agencies
3 and other interested parties affected l)y the regulations, to
4 l)e held in or near one or more of the ])laces where the plan
5 will be applical)le. At least thirty days prior to the date of
^ such hearing, notice thereof shall be pul)lislied in the Federal
'^ Kegister. If. jnior to the date the Secretary publishes such
8 regulations, the State or interstate agency has not adopted
9 such a }dan. the Secretary shall jironudgate such regulations.
1^ (b) raragraph (4) of such subsection (c) is amended
^1 to read as follows:
12 "(4) (A) Whenever, on the basis of surveys, studies,
13 or reports, the Secretary finds that the and)ient air (piality in
I'l any State or the area uiider the jurisdiction of any interstate
15 air ])ollution control ageaicy fails to meet the air quality
1^ standards established ])ursuant to section 107, and he deter-
17 mines, on the l)asis of facts thus ascertained, that such
18 failure results from the failure of a State or interstate agency
1-* to carry out its plan (or the plan i)rovided Inr it l)y the
20 Secretary) under section 108 (c), the Secretar}- shall notify
21 the State or the interstate agency, and the persons con-
-2 tributing to the lowering of the air (piality or to the alleged
2" violations, of such findings.
24 "(B) If such State or interstate agency has not taken
"-- ai)pro])riate remedial action within ninety days of such noti-
40
15
1 fic'iUion, the Secretary may re(|iiest tlie Attorney General
2 to bring suit on behalf of the United States in the appropriate
;) I'nited States district court to enj(/ni violation of applicable
4 standards or regulations by any person within that State or
5 the area under the jurisdiction of any interst^ite air p(»llution
() control agency."
7 (l') (1) Paragraph (1) of subsection (d) of such sec-
8 tion is amended by striking out sul)paragraphs (A), (B),
9 (C), and by striking out "(D)" and inserting in lieu
10 thereof "(d) (1)".
11 (2) The second sentence of paragraph (1) of subsec-
12 tion (f) of such section is amended by striking out "and
13 each State claiming to be adversely affected by such poUu-
14 tion".
15 (3) The first sentence of paragraph (2) of such sub-
16 section is amended by striking out "pollution refen'ed to in
17 subsection (a)" and inserting in lieu thereof "any pollu-
18 tion".
19 (d) Subsection (g) of such section is amended to read
20 as follows:
^1 " (g) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement
22 of the pollution within the time specified in the notice follow-
-3 ing the public hearing is not taken, the Secretary may re-
-4 quest the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the
41
16
1 United States in the appropriate United States district court
2 to secure abatement of the pollution."
3 (e) The first sentence of subsection (j) (1) of such
4 section is amended by striking out "based on existing data,"
5 and inserting before the period at the end thereof ", or any
6 other information which may reasonably be required to assist
'^ the Secretary in evaluating the emission of pollutants caused
S by such person".
^ (f) Section 108 of such Act is further amended by strik-
1^ ing out subsection (b).
11 (g) The amendments made by subsections (a), (b),
12 and (c) of this section shall become effective on the date on
13 which the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare pre-
scribes regulations pursuant to section 107 of the Clean Air
Act as amended by this Act. The amendments made by sub-
sections (d) and (f) of this section shall also be effective on
such date, except that they shall not apply with respect to
any proceeding begun under sul)section (d) of section 108 of
the Clean Air Act prior to such date on which such regula-
tions are prescribed.
21
Sec. 8. Title I of the Clean Air Act is amended by
adding after section 111 the following new sections:
23
"stationary source emission standards
24
"Sec. 112. (a) The Secretary shall from time to time
25
by regulation, giving appropriate consideration to technolog-
42
17
1 ical feasibility, ostablish standards with respect to emissions
2 from classes or types of stationary sources which (1) con-
3 tribute substantially to endangerment of the public health or
4 welfare, and (2) can be prevented or substantially reduced.
5 Such standards may be established only after reasonable
6 notice and opportunity for interested parties to present their
7 views at a public hearing. Any regulations hereunder, and
8 amendments thereof, shall become effective on a date specified
^ therein, which date shall be determined by the Secretary after
10 consideration of the period reasonably necessary for com-
11 pliance. The Secretar}^ may exempt any industry or establish-
12 ment, or any class thereof, from this section, upon such teniis
1^ and conditions as he may find necessary to protect the public
1^ health or welfare, for the pui^pose of research, investigations,
1^ studies, demonstrations, or training, or for reasons of national
1" security.
"(b) Such regTilations shall provide that —
" ( 1 ) if such emissions are extremely hazardous
to health,
" (A) no new source of such emissions shall
be constructed or operated, except where (and sub-
ject to such conditions as he deems necessaiy and
appropriate ) the Secretary makes a specific exemp-
tion with respect to such constmction or operation;
"(B) any existing source of such emissions
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
18
1 shall install and maintain any control measures
2 necessary and appropriate to meet the standards
3 prescribed under this section;
4 "(2) in other cases to which subsection (a) ap-
5 plies, any new source of such emissions shall be designed
" and equipped to prevent and control such emissions to
' the fullest extent compatible with the available tech-
° nology as determined by the Secretary.
*'(c) (1) If, within such period as may be prescribed
by the Secretary, any State or interstate air pollution con-
trol agency adopts a plan for enforcement of the standards
promulgated by the Secretary under this section, such plan
shall, if the Secretary determines it provides adequately for
the enforcement of such standards, be applicable within such
State or other area.
"(2) If a State does not adopt a plan in accordance
with paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Secretary shall,
after reasonable notice and a conference of representatives
of appropriate Federal departments and agencies and State
agencies, prepare regulations establishing a plan for such
State which shall meet the criteria for enforcement plans
required under section 108. If, prior to the date the Secre-
tary publishes such regulations, the State has not adopted
such plan, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations.
" (d) If at any time the Secretary determines that
44
19
1 emissions from any stationary sources are in excess of the
2 standards establisheid by him pursuant to this section, and that
3 this results from the failure of a State or interstate agency
4 to carry out its State plan adopted as provided in paragraph
5 (1) or established as provided in paragraph (2) of subseo-
6 tion (c) , he shall notify the aflfected State or the interstate
7 agency, the person contributing to the pollution, and other
8 interested parties and specify a time within which such failure
9 must ceiase. If such failure does not cease within such time,
10 the Secretary may request the Attorney General to bring
11 suit on behalf of the United States in the appropriate United
12 States district court to secure abatement of the pollution.
13 "(e) Prior to establishing standards under subsection
14 (a) , the Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal
15 departments and agencies having responsibilities related to
16 any stationary sources to which such standards will be
1*7 applicable."
18 "federal enforcement
19 "Sec. 113. (a) If the Secretary, after reasonable notice
20 and opportunity for a hearing, determines (1) (A) that the
21 ambient air quality of any area fails to meet the air quality
22 standards established pursuant to section 107, or (B) that
23 any person is violating any standards established pursuant
24 to section 112, and (2) that such failure or violation results
25 from the failure of a State or mterstate agency to carry out
45
20
1 its plan meeting the requirements of section 108 or 112,
2 as the case may be, or the plan of the Secretary established
3 thereunder, h« shall so notify the State or interstate agency
4 and the persons contributing to the lowering of the air qual-
5 ity or to the violation of such standards, and shall specify
6 the remedial action to be taken and the time, not less than
''' sixty days, within which such persons must take; such action.
8 " (b) If such action is not taken within such time, the
9 Secretary may recpiest the Attorney General to bring a suit
10 on behalf of the United States in the appi-opriatc United
11 States district court to enjoin continued failure to take the
12 necessary remedial action. In any such suit, the court shall
1^ receive into evidence a transcript of the hearing held by the
14 Secretary and a copy of the findings prepared by the Secre-
15 tary as a result thereof. The court may also receive such
16 additional evidence as it deems necessary. The court, giving
1'^ due consideration to the practicability and to the physical
IS feasibility of taking the necessary remedial action, shall
■^■. -
1^ havi> jurisdiction to enter such judgment and orders cnforc-
20 iiig silch judgment as the public interest and the equities of
21 the case may require. The court may also assess a penalty
22 of lip to $10,000 for each day after the end of the period
23 specified by the Seci'etary pursuant to subsection (a) for the
2^ taking of the necessaiy remedial action except that, in deter-
25 mining the amount cif such penalty, the court shall take into
46
21
1 account the efforts of the defendant to abate the pollution
2 involved."
3 . CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
4 Sec. 9. Section 106 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-l)
5 is hereby repealed.
6 EFFECTIVENESS OF NEW PROVISIONS
7 Sec. 10. Section 108 (c) of the Clean Air Act as in effect
8 prior to enactment of this Act and ambient air quality stand-
^ ards and implementation and enforcement plans promulgated
10 or approved, prior to enactment of this Act, under such sec-
11 tion shall not be considered invaHd by reason of such enact-
12 ment until (1) the Secretary of Health, Education, and
13 Welfare establishes ambient air quality standards pursuant
1^ to such section as amended by this Act; and (2) either the
State adopts an implementation and enforcement plan which
1^ is approved by the Secretary pursuant to such section as so
amended or the Secretary provides such a plan pursuant
1^ thereto.
47
9l8T CONGEESS
2d Session
S. 3546
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 4,1970
Mr. MusKiE (for himself, Mr. Bath, Mr. Eagleton, Mr. Montota, Mr. Kan-
DOLPH, and Mr. Spong) introduced the following bill ; which was read twice
and referred to the Committee on Public Works
A BILL
To amend the Clean Air Act, as amended, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be cited as the "National Air Quahty
4 Standards Act of 1970."
5 Sec. 2. In order to accelerate the establishment of am-
6 bient air quality standards pursuant to section 108 of the
7 Clean Air Act, as amended, the Secretary of Health, Educa-
8 tion, and Welfare shall designate immediately all air quality
9 control regions pursuant to the provisions of section 107 of
10 the Clean Air Act, as amended.
11 Sec. 3. (a) Section 107(a) (2) of the Clean Air Act,
II
48
2
1 as amended, is amended by changing "section 108," to "see-
2 tion 108(c) (1),".
3 .(b) Section 107 (a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
4 is further amended by adding a new paragraph at the end
5 thereof to read as follows:
6 " (3) For the purpose of establishing ambient air qual-
7 ity standards pursuant to section 108(c) (2), and for ad-
8 ministrative and other purposes, each State shall, after pubUc
9 hearings and within six months after the effective date of
10 this paragraph, designate one or more air quality control
11 regions within such State which shall include all areas of
12 the State not included in such regions designated under
13 paragraph (2) of this subsection. Such regions shall be
14 based on jurisdictional boundaries, urban-industrial concen-
15 trations, and other factors necessary to provide adequate
16 implementation of air quality standards. The State shall
17 immediately notify the Secretary of such designations. If
18 the State fails to make such designations within the time pre-
19 scri))ed, the Secretary shall promptly make such designations
20 and notify the Governor of the State thereof. Such designa-
21 tions may be revised from time to time thereafter as neces-
22 sary to protect the public health and welfare".
23 Sec. 4. (a) Paragraph (1) of section 108(c) of the
24 Clean Air Act, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
^^ " ( 1 ) If, within thirty days of receiving any air quality
49
3
1 criteria and recommended control techni(iiies issued pursuant
2 to section 107, the Governor of a State files a letter of intent
3 that such State will, after public hearings and within one
4 hundred and eighty days, and from time to time thereafter,
5 adopt ambient air quality standards applicable to anj'^ air
6 quality control region or portions thereof designated pursu-
7 ant to section 107(a) (2) within such State, and, after
8 public hearings and within one hundred and eighty days
9 thereafter, and from time to time as may be necessary
10 adopts a plan which shall include compliance schedules and
11 emission requirements necessary for the implementation,
12 maintenance, and enforcement of such standards of air qual-
13 ity adopted; and if the Secretary determines that —
14 "(A.) such standards and plan are established in
15 accordance with the letter of intent;
16 "(B) such State standards are consistent with the
17 air quahty criteria and recommended control techniques
18 issued pursuant to section 107;
19 " (C) such plan assures that such standards of air
20 quality will be achieved within a reasonable time;
21 "(D) such plan includes emission requirements
22 necessary to implement such standards of air quality;
23 "(E) such plan includes a procedure to assure that
24 proposed new sources of emissions will not cause vioja-
25 tion of such standards ;
50
4
1 "(F) a means of enforcement by State action, in-
2 eluding authority comparable to that in subsection (k)
3 ■ of this section, is provided ; and
4 " (G) any such State standards and plan are con-
5 sistent with the purposes of this Act and this subsection;
6 such standards and plan or revisions thereof shall be the air
7 quality standards apphcable to such region or portions
8 thereof."
9 (b) Paragraphs (2) through (6) of ssection 108 (c) of
10 the Clean Air Act, as amended, are amended to read as
11 follows :
12 "(2) (A) After public hearings and within twelve
13 months of the effective date of this Act, the Governor of
14 a State shall adopt ambient air quahty standards applicable
15 to any air quality control region or portions thereof desig-
16 nated pursuant to section 107(a) (3) of this Act for any
17 pollutants or combinations thereof for which air quahty cri-
18 teria and recommended control techniques have been issued
19 prior to enactment of this Act.
20 **(B) After receiving any air quality criteria and recom-
21 mended control techniques issued after the date of enactment
22 of this paragraph and after public hearings, the Governor of
23 a State shall adopt ambient air quahty standards applicable
2^ to such regions pursuant to the procedures set forth in para-
25 graph ( 1 ) of this subsection.
51
5
1 "(G) Such standards and plan or revisions thereof shall
2 be the air quality standards applicable to such region or
3 portions thereof if the Secretary determines that —
4 " (i) such standards and plan are established in
5 accordance with the letter of intent;
6 ' " (ii) such State standards are consistent with the
"^ air quaUty criteria and recommended control techniques
S issued pursuant to section 107;
^ " (iii) such plan assures that such standards of air
10 quality will be achieved within a reasonable time;
H " (iv) such plan includes emission requirements nec-
12 essary to implement such standards of air quahty;
1^ " (v) such plan includes a procedure to assure that
1^ proposed new sources of emissions will not cause viola-
1^ tion of such standards;
1^ " (vi) a means of enforcement by State action, in-
1"^ eluding authority comparable to that in subsection (k)
18 of this section, is provided; and
19 " (vii) such State standards and plan are consistent
20 with the purposes of this Act.
21 " (3) The Governor of a State shall, from time to time,
22 but at least every five years, hold public hearings for the
23 purpose of reviewing the air quality standards established
24 under this subsection and, as appropriate, revising and adopt-
^^ ing improved air quahty standards. No revised air quality
52
6
1 standards shall reduce the ambient air quahty of any desig-
2 nated region or portion thereof to which such standards are
3 a;pplicahle below the quality established by the air quality
4 standards for such regions or portions thereof prior to such
5 revision.
6 " (4) If a State does not (A) file a letter of intent or
7 (B) establish or revise air quality standards in accordance
8 with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection with
9 respect to any air quality control region or portion thereof,
10 or if the Secretary finds it necessary to achieve the purpose
11 of this Act, or if the Governor of any State affected by air
12 quality standards established pursuant to this subsection peti-
1^"' tions for a revision in such standards, the Secretary shall
14 within one hundred and eighty days develop proposed regu-
15 lations setting forth such standards or revisions thereof eon-
16 sistent with the air (juality criteria and recommended control
1'^ techniques issued pursuant to section 107 applicable to such
18 regions or portions thereof. When such standards are devel-
^^ oped, the Secretary shall, after notice, promptly hold a pub-
20 lie conference of interested representatives of Federal, State,
21 and interstate agencies and of municipalities, industries, and
other persons to revicM^ and comment on such proposed stand-
ards. Upon completion of such conference, the Secretaiy shall
publish such proposed standards in the Federal Register with
such modifications as he deems appropriate and notify the
53
7
1 affected State or States. If, within ninety days from the date
2 the Secretary pubhshes such standards, the State has not
3 adopted air quality standards found by the Secretary to
4 meet the requirements of this subsection for estabhshing such
5 standards, or if a petition has not been filed under paragraph
6 (5) of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate such
7 standards.
8 " (5) At any tune prior to thirty days after standards
^ have been pubhshed under paragraph (4) of this subsec-
10 tion, the Governor of any State affected by such standards
11 may petition the Secretary for a hearing. The Secretary shall
12 promptly issue a notice of such public hearing before a board
13 of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary for the
14 pui'pose of receiving testimony from State and local ponti-
le tion control agencies and other interested persons affected by
1^ the proposed standards, to be held in or near one or more of
1'^ the areas where such standards will apply. Each State af-
18 fected by such standards shall be given an opportunity to
1^ select a member of the board. The chairman and not less
20 than a majority of the members shall not be officers or em-
21 ployees of Federal, State, or local governments. Board mem-
22 bers, other than officers or employees of Federal, State, or
23 local governments, shall be, for each day (including travel-
24 time) during which they are performing committee business,
25 entitled to receive compensation at the rate fixed by the ap-
54
8
1 propriate Secretary but not in excess of the maximum rate
2 of pay for grade GS-18 as provided in the General Schedule
3 under section 5332 of title 5 of the United States Code,
4 and shall, notwithstanding the limitations of sections 5703
5 and 5704 of title 5 of the United States Code, be fully rehn-
6 bursed for travel, subsistence, and related expenses. On the
'7 basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, the board
8 shall, within thirty days unless the Secretary determines a
^ longer period is necessary, but in no event longer than sixty
^^ days, make findings of fact as to whether the standards
11 comply with the requirements of this subsection for estab-
1^ fishing such standards and issue a decision incorporating such
^^ findings therein and transmit its findings to the Secretary
14 and make its findmgs public. If the board ^nds that such
15 standards so comply, they shall be promulgated mimediately.
16 If the board recommends modifications therein, the Secre-
17 tary shall promulgate revised standards in accordance with
18 such recommendations.
19 *'(6) Any violation of air quality standards established
20 under this subsection, including the implementation plan is
21 prohibited.
22 '' (7) Whenever, on the basis of surveys, studies, investi-
23 gations, or reports, an authorized representative of the Sec-
24 retary finds a violation of such standards, he shall promptly
25 issue an order in writing to the person causing or contributing
55
9
1 to such violation reqiiinng such person to abate such viola-
2 tion as soon as possible and within a time to be prescribed
3 therein, except that in the case of a violation of emission re-
4 (juirenients, such time shall not exceed seventy-two hours. A
5 copy of the order shall l)e sent to the State pollution control
6 ao-encv of the State or States in which the violation occurred.
7 Subject to the provisions of this subsection, such order shall
8 remain in efiect until such representative detemimes by writ-
9 ten notice to such person that such violation no longer exists.
10 All such orders shah contain a detailed description of the con-
11 ditions or practices which cause or constitute a violation.
12 Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the authority of the
13 Secretary pursuant to subsection (k) of this section.
14 "(8) (A) Any person issued an order pursuant to para-
15 graph (7) of this subsection other than an order to abate a
16 violation of an emission recpiirement may file with the Sec-
17 retaiy an appHcation within thirty days of receipt thereof for
18 a pubhc hearing to re\4ew such order. The applicant shall
19 send a copy of such appHcation to the State pollution control
20 agency m which the violation occurred. Upon receipt of sucli
21 apphcation, the Secretary shall promptly hold a public hear-
22 ing to enable such person and other interested persons to pre-
23 sent inforaiation relating to the issuance and continuance of
24 the order, or the time fixed therein, or both. The filuig of an
56
10
1 ai)|)licati<)n for review under this paragraph shall not oper-
2 ate as a sta}^ of the order. Any such hearing; shall he of rec-
3 ord and shall he suhject to section 554 of title 5 of the United
4 States Code.
•5 "(^) Ininiediately ui)on completion of the hearing, the
^^ Secretary shall make findings of fact givuig" due considera-
"^ tion to the technological feasihility of complying with such
8 standards and he shall issue a written decision, incorporatinjr
^ therein an order vacating, affirming, modifying, or termiim<-
1^ ing the previous order complained of and his findings.
^1 " (C) In connection with any hearing under this pavn-
1- grai)h, the Secretary may sign and issue sul)penas for tlip
-^'^ attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of
34 relevant papers, hooks, and documents, and administer oaths,
15 Witnesses sunnuoned shall he paid the same fees and mileage
1^ that are ])aid witnesses in the courts of the United States. In
1^ case of contumacy or refusal to o))ey a subpena served upon
18 any person under this paragraph, the distriot court of the
1^ United States for any district in which such i)(.'rson is found
-^^ or resides or transacts business, upon application by the
"■l Ignited States and after notice to such person, shall have
-^ jurisdiction to issue an order recpiiring such person to ai)pear
"'' and give testimony before the Secretary or to appear and
•^■^ ])roduce documents before the Secretary, or both, and any
-"'^ failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by
^ such court as a contempt thereof.
57
11
1 " (9) Any decision issued by the Secretary under para-
2 (Trapli (7) or (8) of this subsection shall be subject to ju-
3 dicial review by the United States court of appeals for the
4 circuit in which the violation occurred, or the United States
•5 Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, upou
'> the filhig in such court within thirty days from the date of
T such order or decision of a petition by any person aggrieved
8 thereby ^jrayino; that the order or decision be modified or
9 set aside in whole or in part. Any order issued by the Sec-
10 retary to abate a violation of an emission requirement shall
11 l)e final and shall be in force until and unless the court de-
12 termines that the interests of the public are best served b}'
13 staying; such order. A copy of the petition shall forthwith
14 l)e sent by registered or certified mail to the Secretary and
15 rhe State water pollution control agency, and thereupon the
16 Secretary .shall certify and file in such court the record upon
17 which the order or decision complained of was issued, as
18 ])rovided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code.
19 The court shall hear such petition on the record made Iteforc
20 the Secretary. The findings of the Secretary, if supported by
21 substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole,
22 shall be conclusive. The court may afhrni. vacate, or modify
23 nny order or decision of the Secretary and, when appro-
24 piiate. issue such process as may be necessary to abate such
25 violation, or may remand the proceedings to the Secretary
58
12
1 for such further action as it may direct. The judgment of
2 the court shall be subject to review only by the Supreme
3 "Court of the United States upon a writ of certorari or
4 certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United
^ States Code. The commencement of a proceeding under this
6 paragraph shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court,
"^ operate as a stay of the order or decision of the Secretary.
8 "(10) (A) The Secretary shall institute a civil action
^ for relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction,
10 restraining order, or any other appropriate order in the dis-
11 trict court of the United States for the district in which
12 a person subject to air ([uality standards estabUshed imder
13 this section is located or resides or is doing business, when-
14 ever such person (i) violates or fails or refuses to comply
1^ with any final order or decision issued under this subsection
16 to enforce air quafity standards established under this sub-
1''' section or (ii) interferes with, hinders, or delays the Secre-
1^ tary or his authorized representive in carrying out his respon-
1^ sibilities under this section, or (iii) refuses to furnish any
20 information, data or reports recpiested by the Secretary in
21 furtherance of the provisions of this section, or (iv) refuses
22 to pci-mit access to, and copying of, such records as the
23 Secretary detennines necessary in carrying out the pr<»\i-
24 sions of this section. Each court shall have jurisdiction to
2*5 provide such relief as may be appropriate, except that such
59
13
1 court shall have jurisdiction only Avith regard to the issue
2 of relief heing sought pursuant to this paragraph. Temporary
3 restraining orders shall be issued in accordance with rule
4 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, ex-
5 cept that the time limit in such orders, tflien issued without
6 notice, shall be seven days from the date of entry. In actions
7 under this section, subject to the direction and control of the
8 Attorney General, as provided in section 507(b) of title
9 28 of the United States Code, attorneys appointed by the
10 Secretary may appeal* for and represent him. In any action
11 instituted under this section to enforce an order or decision
12 issued by the Secretary after a public hearing in accordance
13 with section 554 of title 5 of the United States Code, the
14 findings of the Secretary, if supported by substantial evi-
15 dence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive.
16 "(B) Any person who knowingly violates any air
17 quahty standards established under this subsection or who
18 knowingly violates any plan for implementation or emission
19 requirements included in such standards or who knowingly
20 violates or fails or refuses to comply with any final order or
21 decision issued under this section shall, upon conviction, be
22 punished by a fine of not more than $25,000 per day of vio-
23 lation, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or
24 by both, except that, if the conviction is for a violation com-
25 mitted after the first conviction of such person under this
60
14
1 section, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than
2 $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not
3 • more than five years, or by both.
4 " (C) Any person who knowingly makes any false state-
5 ment, representation, or certification in any application, rec-
^ ord, report, plan, or other document filed or required to be
'^ maintained under this title or any order or decision issued
^ under this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by a
^ fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not
more than six months, or by both.
"(11) For the purpose of making any investigation
19
under this subsection of any building, structure, or other
13
facility subject to air quality standards established under this
14 sul)section, the Secretary or his authorized representative
1^ shall have a right of entry to, upon, or through such building,
16 structure, or facility. Whenever any person is required by a
1' final order issued under this subsection to abate any viola-
1° tion of air quality standards established under this subsection,
1^ the Secretary shall, when appropriate, require such person
to sample any emissions subject to abatement by such order
m accordance with such methods, at such locations, at such
mtervals, and in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe
pq
and report such samples to the Secretary as he may prescribe
24
and such report shall l)e public.
"(12) (A) No person shall discharge or in any other
61
15
1 wa}^ discriminate against or cause to be discharged or dis-
2 criminated against any employee or any authorized repre-
3 sentative of employees by reason of the fact that such em-
4 ployee or representative of any alleged violator has filed,
5 instituted, or caused to be filed or instituted any proceeding
6 under this Act, or has testified or is about to testify in any
7 proceeding resulting from the administrations or enforcement
8 of the pro^dsions of this Act.
9 " (B) Any employee or a representative of employees
10 who believes that he has been discharged or otherwise dis-
11 criminated against by any person in violation of subparagraph
12 (A) of this paragraph may within thirty days after such vio-
13 lation occurs, apply to the Secretary for a review of such
14 alleged discharge or discrimination. A copy of the application
15 shall be sent to such person who shall be the respondent.
16 . Upon receipt of such application, the Secretary shall cause
1'^ such investigation to be made as he deems appropriate. Such
18 investigation shall provide an opportunity for a public hear-
1^ ing at the request of any party to enable the parties to present
20 information relating to such violation. The parties shall be
21 given written notice of the time and place of the hearing at
22 least five days prior to the hearing. Any such hearing shall
23 be of record and shall be subject to section 554 of title 5 of the
24 United States Code. Upon receiving the report of such inves-
25 tigation, the Secretary shall make findings of fact. If he
62
16
1 finds that such violation did occur, he shall issue a decision,
2 incorporating an order therein, requiring the person commit-
3 ting such violation to take such affirmative action to abate the
4 violation as the Secretary deems appropriate, including, but
5 not Imiited to, the rehiring or reinstatement of the employee
6 or representative of employees to his former position with
7 compensation. If he finds that there was no such violation, he
8 shall issue an order denying the application. Such order is-
^ sued by the Secretary under this subparagraph shall be
1^ subject to judicial review in accordance with this subsection.
11 Violations by any person of paragraph { 1 ) of this subsection
12 shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (10) of this
l"^ subsection.
14 "(C) Whenever an order is issued under this para-
15 graph, at the request of the applicant, a sum equal to the
16 aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including the
17 attorney's fees) as determined by the Secretary to have been
18 reasonably incurred by the appHcant for, or in connection
19 with, the institution and prosecution of such proceedings,
20 shall be assessed against the person committing such
21 violation.
22 "(13) The district courts of the United States shall have
23 original jurisdiction, regardless of the amount in controversy
24 or the citizenship of the parties, of civil actions brought by
25 one or more persons on behalf of themselves or on behalf
63
17
1 of any other persons similarly situated within any air quality
2 control region or portion thereof designated under section
3 107 against any person including a governmental instru-
4 mentality or agency, for declaratory and equitable relief or
5 any other appropriate order against any person, where there
6 is an alleged violation of any applicable air quaUty standards,
7 plan for implementation or emission requirements estabhshcd
8 pursuant to this section. Nothing in this subsection shall
9 affect the rights of such persons as a class or as individuals
10 under any other law to seek enforcement of such standards."
11 (c) Section 108 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
12 is further amended by adding a new subsection at the end
13 thereof to read as follows :
14 " (i) Within six months after the effective date of this
15 Act, the Secretary shall issue regulations to insure that any
16 person constructing or installing any new building, structure,
17 or other facility subject to any air quahty standard estab-
18 lished or revised pursuant to this section installs, maintains,
19 and uses the latest available pollution control techniques.
20 Such techniques shall be consistent with information de-
21 veloped pursuant to section 107 (c) . No person shall con-
22 struct or install any such building, structure, or facility
23 without first receiving certification of compliance with such
24 regulations from the Secretary or, as appropriate, the State
25 pollution control agency. In no event shall the Secretary or
64
18
1 State agency certify any technique which does not implement
2 emission re(j[uirements established pursuant to this Act."
3 * Sec. 5. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, is
4 amended further by addmg a new subsection at the end
5 thereof to read as follows:
6 ''(c) Beginning on and after July 1, 1972, no Federal
'^ department or agency ( 1 ) shall make any loan or grant to,
8 or issue any license or permit to, or enter into any contract
^ for financial assistance with, any person for the construction,
1^ installation, or operation of any commercial or industrial
^^ building, structure, or other facility from which any matter
^^ is discharged into the air within any air quality control
^^ region or portions thereof designated under this title, or (2)
■^^ shall procure goods or products from any person who manu-
■'■^ factures such goods or products in a buildmg, structure, or
■^" other facility from which matter is discharged into the air
•'■' within any air quality control region or portions thereof
^° designated under this title, unless it is found that such matter
^^ is being discharged in compliance mth the air quality stand-
ards including emission requirements established under this
91 .
title for such region or portions thereof by the air pollution
99
control agency of the State in which such building, structure,
9'-^
or other facihty is located and such person files a statement
94
with such department or agency of such finding."
25 c(
Sec. 6. The provisions of this Act amending the Clean
65
19
1 Air Act, as amended, shall, unless otherwise provided in
2 said amendments, be effective on July 1, 1971, except that
3 such amendments shall not, unless otherwise provided there-
4 m, affect actions taken under the sections as amended prior
5 to such effective date.
66
Comparison of Provisions of Pending Legislation
The Administration bill, S. 3466, would amend many of the provisions of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, as folhnvs :
(a) Extend authorization of —
(1) Existing flection 104(c) (fuel and internal combustion enginge re-
search) by authorizing "such sums as may be necessary" for the next three
fiscal yearsL ^ ^^. ^
S 3229 before the Committee would similarly extent S. 104 by author-
iziJig: 1970, $45 million; 1971, $125 million; 1972, $150 million; and
1973, $175 million.
(2) Existing section 309 (general NAPCA appropriation) by authorizing
"such sums as may be necessary for the next three fiscal years."
S. 3229 would authorize : 1970, $134 million ; 1971, $150 million ; 1972,
$175 million ; and 1973, $200 million.
(b) (1) To provide authority to spot check assembly line motor vehicles for
in fact compliance with emission standards i)romulgated under existing law and
(2) clarifying amendments to the motor vehicle registration provisions.
(c) To amend exislting law (section 210) providing authority for fuel additive
registration by reiiuiring (1) regii-tration of fuels, (2) compilation of data and
research on such fuels and additives, and (3) authority to regulate sale of fuels
and fuel additives and increasing to $10,000 the penalty for violation.
S. 3229 does not contin such an amendment for fuel additives and fuels.
However, it does propose to authorize extension of motor vehicle emission
standard authority to all moving internal combustion engines — including
aircraft. It also provides for Federal preemption for this authority. S. 3229
would also provide for a Federal grant program to assist States in inspection.
An amendment to S. 3229 (#501) introduced by Senator Montoya would
authorize the Secretary of HEW to sets standards for fuel composition, to
regulate manufacture and processing of fuels, and to regulate their im-
portation. The Amendment further provides a penalty of $1,000 per day for
violation of any such regulations.
S. 3229 would authorize HEW to set emission standards for all sources
of "solvents".
(d) To substitute for the present procedure for establishment of regional
standards, a new authority for HEW to set national ambient air standards for
any pollutant or combination of ix>llutants. This would eliminate a procedure
requiring a 6-month time period required under the present Act It is not clear
from the language whether the States could adopt more stringent standards.
Even though Section 109 of the existing law is preserved giving States the author-
ity to seit more sitringent standards there is no procedure set out in the proposed
bill, consequently Section 109 may prove to be impossible to implement. Another
problem is that this pFopo.sal would avoid public hearings in standard setting
xVhich to date have resulted in more stringent standards than recommended by
government agencies. The Secretary would continue his responsibility to furnish
criteria.
S. 3546, introduced by Senator Muskie, would provide that regional .stand-
ard setting would be continued but would direct the Secretary of HEW to
designate all air quality control regions immediately. It would also accelerate
the regional standards .setting processes by requiring a letter of intent from
the Governor within 30 days of the issuance of criteria rather than the 90
days under present law. S. 3546 preserves the 6-month period for regional
standard setting and the 6-month period for establishment of implementation
plans in requiring public hearings in both procedures. It will also, as does
the Administration bill, require emission requirements (effluent standards)
for all sources of air effluence in a given region.
S. 3546 will require consideration of revision of air quality standards
every five years. S. 3546 adds a new provision to authorize the establishment
of ambient air quality standards for those areas of the States not included
in the air quality control regions designated by the Secretary,
(e) In order to conform to the National air standard States would be required
to file in 90 days from date of setting the national standard a letter of intent to
prepare an implementation plan that would include enforcement, effluent stand-
ards and intergovernmental cooperation provisions, that must be submitted to
HEW within 6 months and if there is failure to do so HEW would impose such
plan ( with a procedure provided ) .
67
S. 3546 would provide for imposition of Federal standards where the
States fail. S. 3546 is more detailed than the Administration's proposed revi-
sion in that it calls for the Secretary to act within 180 days to establish
regulations to notify interested parties, to hold a conference, and at the con-
clusion af the conference publish the proposed standards and within 90 days
promulgate the imposed standards. The Administration bill would require
the Secretary only to have a public hearing, taking testimony from inter-
ested parties, and following such public hearings, to promulgate such regu-
lations. The minimum time under S. 3546 approximately 10 months ; the
minimum time under the Administration proposal would be approximately
2 months before such federally imposed regulations were promulgated.
(f) to amend the Secretary's abatement authority to provide that he may
initiate abatement upon (1) violation of ambient air standards due to failure of
a State or interstate agency to enforce its "Plan." The abatement authority re-
quires the State to act within 90 days of the Secretary's notice or the Secretary
refers the matter to the U.S. Attorney General for court abatement.
S. 3546 also imposes penalty provisions including fines up to $25,000 per
day violation.
(g) preserves the enforcement and abatement procedures on international
pollution from U.S. Source culminating in court action, following notice and
conference.
S. 3546 also preserves this authority with some modification,
(h) authorizes the Secretary of HEW to set, by regulation, emission stand-
ards (effluent standards) for stationary sources. The Secretary would (1) pro-
hibit or condition construction and operation of those sources having emissions
"extremerly hazardous to health"; (2) require installation of devices on exist-
ing sources ; and (3) require that any new source of emission shall be constructed
with the most advanced applied technology. Although the President's message
indicates that this authority was restricted to "new sources" a fair reading of
the proiKjsed legislation discloses no such limitation and it appears that the
authority is only limited to new or existing sources that "contribute substantially
to endangerment of public health and welfare, and (2) can be prevented or
substantially reduced." Although there is provision that a State can adopt Fed-
eral stationary source emission standards in its implementation plan, it is not
clear if a State can impose more stringent emission standards for such stationary
sources.
In addition, an abatement provision is provided that if following notice of vio-
lation and after a time set in such notice for compliance, there is non-compliance,
the Secretary then refers the matter to the Attorney General.
S. 3546 will also require emission requirements for all sources of air pol-
lution in a region to be filed with the implementation plan,
(i) To provide general Federal enforcement authority for violation of air qual-
ity standards resulting from a failure to enforce implementation plans. This is
initiated by the Secretary furnishing notice of required remedial action that must
be taken in not less than 60 days. If there is non-compliance with such notice
the matter is referred to the Attorney General for court proceeding. There is also
provision that the court tnay impose a fine up to $10,000 for each day after the
end of the period set for compliance in the notice from the Secretary. This
authority may or may not exist in present law.
S. 3546, as does the Administration bill, abbreviates the enforcement pro-
cedure. Whenever the Secretary finds a violation of standards he shall issue
an order to the person causing or contributing to such violation requiring
abatement as soon as possible except that in the case of a violation of
emission requirements such time shall not exceed 72 hours. Except for an
order requiring abatement of violation of an emission requirement, the
alleged violator may request a public hearing after which the Secretary
shall make a finding of fact giving due consideration to technologic feasi-
bility complying with such standards and issue a decision. Such decision is
reviewable in the Court of Appeals. Following such decision the Secretary
shall in.stitute civil action in the District Court for abatement.
S. 3546 would mandate a fine for violation up to $25,000 or 1 year in prison
or both.
In addition to the governmental abatement provided in the existing law
and proposed to be modified in both the Administration bill and S. 3546,
S. 3546 would add provision that the District Courts shall have original
jurisdiction to hear complaints brought by citizens for alleged violation of
68
air quality standards and plans for implementation. The remedy sought is
limited to declaratory and equitable relief.
S. 3221) would authorize the establishment in HEW of an Office of Noise
Pollution Abatement. The President's message was silent on Noise.
Senator Muskie. Our first witness this morning is Dr. Kuth Weiner,
president of the Colorado Citizens for Clean Air.
Dr. Weiner, it is a pleasure to welcome you this morning, and to
receive your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. RUTH WEINER, PRESIDENT, COLORADO
CITIZENS FOR CLEAN AIR, DENVER, COLO.
Dr. Weiner. Thank you very much.
It is a great honor to be here, to be asked to appear before the
committee.
I am here as representative of the Colorado Citizens for Clean Air,
which presently has a membership of about 250 citizens, mostly of
Denver, and I am also representing the Colorado Open Space Coordi-
nating Council, which is a federation of about 26 conservation-oriented
organizations, with an accumulative membership of 25,000, mostly
citizens of Colorado.
Professionally, I am a professor of chemistry at Temple Buell Col-
lege in Denver, and I hold a doctorate in physical chemistry from
Johns Hopkins University.
I would like to comment, first of all, on the national program which
sets up ambient air quality standards. I^et me say, we are extremely
grateful for Federal leadership in this area. Without Federal leader-
ship, we would have no pollution control at all, I am certain, in
Colorado, or anywhere else. However, there are certain aspects of
the Federal program which I don't think work quite as they are
intended.
The ambient air standards, which are set up under section 108 of
the existing act, have become, on the statewide level, a kind of low-
numbers game. If you look on the ambient air standards as a goal,
then the obvious goal should be zero, or background, whatever the case
may be.
To set anything higher as a goal implies that some community will
be permitted to pollute up to a certain level. And it is our opinion
that the total pollution burden of the earth, if you will, can no longer
bear that kind of addition.
You have got to, instead of saying to a community, as setting an
ambient air standard does, "OK, this particular level of pollution is an
OK level," so this is in a sense a license to pollute up to that level.
Senator Muskie. That really isn't what the act says.
Dr. Weiner. I know it isn't what it says, but it is sort of the way it
really works in practice.
We have got ambient standards in Colorado, and this is the way
they are interpreted. I know it is not what the act says, but it is the
interpretation that has resulted.
Senator Muskie. Let me ask you a question. Do you think there is
a way of establishing a control mechanism which will achieve zero
of purely manmade pollutants?
09
Dr. Weiner. No; I don't think there is, because there are always
leaks.
Senator Muskie. So I gather what you mean, or what I understand
you to mean, is that we need a way of tightening the screws on pollu-
ters, which means that you have got to do it as fast as technology
permits.
Dr. Weiner. That is correct.
And I think my own feeling about the way this should be done is
to set emission standards, not at some ambient levels, or some permis-
sive level, but at the ultimate level of control, and then to keep re-
vising them as control mechanisms become available in an off-the-shelf
fashion.
Senator Muskie. Might I say in response that just as we can't expect
zero as the goal for purely manmade pollutants under ambient air
standards, in the same way if you have national emission standards
you have got to set those in stages.
Dr. Weiner. I think if you set
Senator Muskie. If you set them in stages, isn't your first stage a
permission, a license to pollute ?
Dr. Weiner. Yes, it is; and I think that I would envision that over
the next 5 years you could set for stationary emitters of certain pollu-
tants of the major pollutants, sulfur dioxides, nitrogen dioxides, nitric
oxide, and hydrogen sulfide, an approaching goal of zero emission.
It is now possible to control anything that comes out of a stack, be-
cause in the laboratory, we do it all the time, and you test stacks quan-
titatively. It is not economic, and part of the point
Senator Muskie. The very limited point I am making is that what-
ever mechanism you adopt, you have got to approach your ultimate
goal in stages.
Dr. Weiner. Yes.
Senator Muskie. And you are saying that because the 1967 act rec-
ognizes the fact that you have got to approach it in stages that the
first stage amounts to a license to pollute. And all I am saying is that
if you adopt your mechansm, since it also depends upon approaching
it in stages, the first stage is going to be interpreted as a license to
pollute.
Dr. Weiner. Yes, I think you are right, and perhaps I should alter
my own thinking, and not adopt the first stage.
Senator Muskie. What we are all striving for is the ultimate goal,
which you state, and that is where there would be no manmade pollu-
tants, and where we approach background levels. Since you can't do
it tomorrow morning with whatever mechanism you adopt — I think
we have to consider all, including national emission standards, ambient
air standards, and so on. I think we will gradually put together — I
hope, at least, we will — a mechanism that will begin to tighten the
screws effectively. But to concentrate upon the first stage, only, I
agree with you, is misleading. It is discouraging. We ought to recog-
nize that whatever mechanism we are talking about, whether it is the
1967 act or the one you propose, we are going to have to propose to
move toward it in stages. The real test really is how rapidly your
mechanism permits you to move to the ultimate.
Dr. Weiner. Yes, and this is the place where I would tliink that a
mechanism which sets emission standards, which is the basis on which
70
you ajctually have enforcement — you don't really enforce against am-
bient standards, you enforce against emission standards — would move
more rapidly toward a state of cleaner air than the present and con-
tinued mechanism of setting ambient standards, and then setting forth
an implementation plan which will meet the ambient standards.
Senator Muskie. Of course, the approach of the ambient standards
is this: If you talk only albout national emission standards, I assume
you have got to identify the national polluters. You are not going to
control the backyard burning, under a national standard, presumably.
I don't know what you have in mind.
A lot of pollution sources are not national in their scope. In a given
community, they could be heavy contributors to that community's air
pollution problem.
The whole idea of the ambient standards is not that you don't con-
trol emissions ; of course you have to control emissions. They are the
source of pollution. But tlie idea behind ambient standards is that
they give you a mechanism to get at all polluters, whether national, or
regional, or local, in impact.
Dr. Weiner. Yes. And this is, in that sense, a very good mechanism.
But what we would en\dsion is that the relationship between na-
tional emission standards. State emission standards, and local emis-
sion standards is somewhat the way under the new bill which was just
passed in Colorado, we have a relationship between State and local :
the local agencies may set more stringent standards than the State.
In other words, if you don't ban backyard burning on a national
level, you still permit a given community, as Denver, in fact, does, to
prohibit backyard burning, whereas another community, such as Flem-
ing, Colo., which is very small, permits backyard burning.
So this much leeway is allowed.
My only quarrel with the ambient standards is that what happens
with ambient standards becomes a little misleading. You permit a
given emitter to say, "How can you prove that this particular ambient
level of sulfur dioxide is due to my emission?" And the enforcing
agency, or in some cases the citizens group, then has to go through
a long routine with the diffusion model, and everything else, proving
that it was in fact his emission. This is a question I don't think we
should ever have to answer. We should never have to say to anyone,
"It was you, and therefore, you have to stop."
You shoidd be able to say to an emitter, "Because you are emitting
sulfur dioxide"
Senator Muskie. I agree, but I think also that you can't ignore the
relationship between a whole range of emissions and their results in
terms of ambient air quality.
Dr. Weiner. No, I don't propose to ignore it.
Senator Muskie. It seems to me that we need both, under what-
ever mechanism of control we use. They are interrelated. In the case
of the 1967 act, we haven't really started. This is one of my complaints
about it, frankly; in the administration of the program, we haven't
really started to implement it.
Dr. Weiner. Yes.
Senator Muskie. And we do not understand, or at least we haven't
made clear, the comiection between emissions and the ambient air
quality. As long as that point is involved, I think your criticism is
perfectly valid.
71
But I don't think that it needs to be endowed under the 1967 act,
and that is why some of the amendments that we are considering are
before us. I think, eventually, we have to move into increasing the
range of national emission sources that we control.
The internal combustion engine is one. That is the national stand-
ard. We ought to establish others, for local sources.
I didn't mean to interrupt your statement at this point. I wish you
would continue with that and we will get into some of these questions,
maybe, more thoroughly after you have finished.
Dr. Weiner. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The next point I was going to make involves exactly the connection
between ambient standards and the implementation plan study. There
are really only two ways of judging an implementation plan.
At least, from various materials we have received from NAPCA.
The first one is a sort of general
Senator Muskie. First, where are you picking up ?
Dr. Weiner. Oh, I am picking up at the last paragraph on page 1.
Senator Muskie. I wish you would go back and pick up that
fourth paragraph, because that is a Denver situation, and I would
like to have that.
Dr. Weiner. Oh, I am sorry.
We have in Denver a very high particulate background. At Cherry
Creek Dam, which is considerably outside the city limits of Denver
and which is generally considered, in the Denver air quality region, to
be a pollution-free area, we measure a background annual arithmetic
mean of 55 micrograms per cubic meter, which is very high. Now,
how we can expect to get our particulate level in Denver below this
escapes me, and I don't think that NAPCA has given sufficient con-
sideration to the fact that we do have a high ambient background.
The other problem that we have with the Federal criteria is that
we have very little sulfur dioxide. The present standards in the
Colorado law are such that Colorado is essentially a sulfur dioxide
haven, the industries have taken the attitude that, because there isn't
any problem, they can come right in and create one. We only have
about three significant sulfur dioxide emitters in the Denver metro
area, and one of those shouldn't be operating at all; they should be
shut down.
We would like to have more consideration given soon to what our
real problem is, which is the production of nitric oxide and nitrogen
dioxide. This is the really bad constituent of the Denver problem,
because there is reason to believe now that nitric oxide is the photo-
chemical trigger, it is the energ;v' absorber, for photochemical radiation.
Senator Muskie. What kinds of emitters do you have that produce
that?
Dr. Weiner. All high temperature emitters do. Our powerplants
do, the foundries — we have a couple of foundries in South Denver, a
number of refineries north of Denver city limits, and Adams County,
and since they emit fairly hot gases, they are heavy producers of nitric
oxide, and of course all of the automobiles produce nitric oxide at the
exhaust, and the four power-generating stations in the South Platte
Valley. .
The problem is that we are subject to temperature inversions, very
severe temperature inversions, and our industries are situated along
72
the South Platte Valley, which is the low point, so that everything
collects and builds up during the day, and the typical brown color of
nitrogen dioxide on bad smog days screens the mountains from Den-
ver. It is a visibility thing. You can see it very well.
This is why we are so aware of this.
Senator Muskie. You see that in a lot of those mountain cities out
there, don't you?
Dr. Weiner. Yes, it is becoming an increasing problem.
Well, this was my point about the background.
My point about the implementation plan is that there are only two
ways of judging it: one the reduction of percentages; the other is by
a diffusion modeling technique, and insofar as I am familiar with the
diffusion modeling technique it doesn't take enough of the variables
into account. It does not, for example, take into account the photo-
chemical reaction between different sources of pollution. Although you
can put different sources into the diffusion equation, it is not developed
to a point where you can include the products of reactions, largely
because the reaction mechanisms are not well established.
So it is a little difficult to see on what basis our implementation plans
are going to be judged as being adequate, and here is one place where
S. 3546, on page 3, does set up some criteria for judging this, which in-
cludes emission standards.
It seems to me that in order to judge an implementation plan
NAPCA has got to consider what the local emitters are, and what the
local emission standards are. They can't simply plug into a diffusion
model and say, "It is good," or "It is bad." I would also hope that in
judging any of these implementation plans differences in altitude are
taken into account. We have a very severe problem in Denver because
of the high altitude, because we are operating at nine-tenths of an
atmosphere, rather than one atmosphere pressure.
Senator Muskie. I would like to make two points here.
One, we had intended that emission requirements be taken into ac-
count in the 1967 act, and the confusion which has developed under it
is one of the reasons why this provision is in this bill.
The second point is that one of the reasons why we took the regional
approach in 1967 is the very one that you have touched upon ; that is,
there are differences, altitude, and so forth. In my part of the coun-
try, we are presumably ventilated by the ocean breeze. The ventilation
doesn't work very efficiently, but, nevertheless, the fact that we are
located on the ocean is one of the reasons why there is a different
approach. The regional plan is a way of taking into account the
variables.
Dr. Weiner. I think part, of this has been in the actual working
of the plan, and in Durham, N.C., where our plans were criticized, they
often don't have any real picture of what the Denver situation is.
I know that S. 3466 includes national ambient standards, and I
have failed to see what effect they are going to have at all.
It seems to me any national ambient air standard just is going to
foul Denver up hopelessly. It would be a disaster for Denver,
We are in a situation where a little smog goes a long way, and I am
sure tliat any national standards would be set above the level that
Denver could tolerate.
Senator Muskie. I have my own ideas of why that language was
used, but we will get it defined tomorrow, with the Secretary.
73
Dr. Weiner. I think this would be a very bad way to go, myself.
I think this is something we are already arguing with our own enforce-
ment agencies, that for an emergency alert system, for example, we
can't use Los Angeles measurements. We have got to make a correla-
tion in Denver of what the citizen of Denver perceives as bad smog,
versus what our single monitor downtxjwn measures as bad smog, and
we have as yet been unable to convince our own enforcement agencies
or anybody else that this is the case.
The Citizens for Clean Air is starting a voluntary program of
correlation, getting the data and correlating it with what various
people around Denver see as bad smog on that day, or as a good day,
for that matter. So far as I know, this is the only program of its kind
in the country. There is a lot of correlation with health effects. There
is almost no correlation with visible or esthetic effects. It seems to me
that is extremely imj3ortant, because this, in a sense, the esthetic effect
is an early warning system. Smog is unpleasant a long time before
it is bad for you, and in Denver, especially, we are accustomed to a
visibility of 80 miles, and when it is cut down to 1 or 2 miles, people
still aren't dropping dead, nor are we having increased hospital admis-
sions, but it is noticeably bad and unpleasant, and it does serve as a
warning to everyone.
I would like to see some visibility standards adopted.
Senatx)r Muskie. We ought to get some smell from that, too.
Dr. Weiner. And some smell. But this is very difficult to get in.
Another problem, incidentally, to get back to the diffusion modeling,
is that we do have agricultural opening burning taking place in
agricutlural counties which are near major or urban cenlters. There
is an agricultural area included in the present Denver air quality
region, and it is impossible to include those in the diffusion equation,
because you don't know when the people are going to burn, you don't
know where they are going to burn, what the extent of the burning is ;
it may be just a ditch, it may be a fence row, it may be a whole field,
and this does contribute significantly to the pollution problem in
Denver.
For example
Senator Muskie. Is it seasonal ?
Dr. Weiner. It is somewhat seasonal, and we have had bad situa-
tions where tree burning has been done in the city of Denver, because
of Dutch Elm disease, and at the same time, some fellow in Adams
County burns off a field, and the sky is just dark brown everywhere.
Senator Muskie. For what purposes are the fields burned off ?
Dr. Weiner. I am not a farmer, so I don't know. I think there is a
lot of debris that collects in ditches. Partly, we suspect, they burn off
their own trash. If you drive around in rural counties, you do see huge
piles of old tires and papers and stuff being burned. The farmers claim
that the city slickers dump a lot of trash on their ground, and they
have to bum it.
Senator Muskie. I can't blame them. I think that is true.
Dr. Weiner. And I can't blame them for that at all.
My point is only that it is a relatively uncontrolled source, and no
matter how much we try to control it this will be a limited control at
best, and should be taken into account in any judgment of our
implementation.
74
Senator Muskie. There are some parts of the country where burn-
ing is associated with the crop itself.
Dr. Weiner. Yes.
Senator Muskie. That isn't so in the Denver region ?
Dr. Weiner. There is some, and I really couldn't answer to that
with any kind of knowledge, because I have none.
The Federal criteria have concerned themselves primarily with
health effects, and that has gotten us into a trap, especially with the
industrial emitters in Denver, because they keep saying, "Well, all
right, such and such a level is immediately below the demonstrable
health effects, so beyond that, you don't have to control," and this
definitely doesn't take into account long-term effects of pollutants
building up in the atmosphere.
I see no way to take this into account.
Again, I would like to make the pomt thait the esthetic effects is an
early warning system for the health effects, and I think we should
control below the level of discernibility, if we possibly can.
This w^as our point when we had the Federal hearings last October
in Denver, and we were very much attacked for it.
This was the reason for suggesting nationwide emission standards,
at least for some pollutants, and for some processes, because it seems
to me every emitter should be controlled to the point where the
emission can be controlled.
Senator Muskie. I would like to just make this point : It was not
the intent that ambient air standards be related only to health effects.
The ambient air standards were supposed to be designed, the statute
says so, for health and welfare. Welfare included esthetics, smell —
which we have a little bit of in my State, because of the manufactur-
ing processes we have. The standards should go across the whole range.
I would agree with you that if it would relate w^holly to measurable
health effects, we would have very little control. Crisis situations, po-
tential crisis situations, are pretty limited. Still, in spite of the air
pollution problem, long-term, low-level, health effects haven't yet
been measured well enough to give us any rule. I would agree with
you on this point.
Dr. Weiner. I am just talking about the way the thing seems to
work, rather than the intent of the act.
Senator Muskie. And the only reason I am interrupting is because
I think this is going to be an issue in these hearings. I ]ust wanted
at key points to indicate what our intent was, so that we can get the
true record in the hearings.
Dr. Weiner. Yes.
Senator Muskie. May I make another point here? Again, I am
saying this for the purpose of the record : There is a difference, of
course, in health effects with different groups of people, old versus
the young, the ill versus the healthy, and so on. In setting standards,
not only ambient standards but emission standards, I would assume
as we proceed through the stages, we must be concerned with the
health effects upon the most vulnerable in our population rather than
upon the healthy groups.
Dr. Weiner. Yes. I think this is very important, and it is very
important to us.
Denver is a community where a great many people move to retire,
in order to retire, and elderly citizens, retired citizens, form a large
75
segment of our population. I think the effects on them should be con-
sidered very much.
We also, of course, have a hospital for asthmatic children, Children's
Asthma Research Institute, and Xational Jewish Hospital, which for
many years has been a center for people with lung disease, so we are
quite concerned about effects on the vulnerable population, and we
srill have very little health effect in Denver, although everyone con-
cedes that the smog is terrible.
I would like to go on to the subjeot of vehicle emissions. In
Colorado, we have just been through the throes of passage of a new
State air pollution law, and the Federal preemptions of emission
standards for new vehicles has hurt us vei-y much, mainly because,
again, the difference in altitude is not taken into account. Most of
the time when a car in Detroit is manufactured even to meet Federal
standards, it won't meet those standards in Denver, much less ait
the top of Loveland Pass, which is 11,000 feet above sea level,
and we are getting bad pollution situations in high-altitude areas,
primarily over the major highways of the State. If you stand by
U.S. 40, just below Berthoud Pass, at about 10,000 feet, you can smell
the exhaust. It just builds up hugely, and I am sure it will only be
a matlter of time before we get enough that there will be photo-
chemical reaction, and you will have a visible haze, which will destroy
Colorado as a tourist State.
The ^'isible smog is already having an effect on the tourist industry
in Denver and I would hate to see this go to high altitudes.
Senator Muskie. Here is a case where national emission standards
don't work.
Dr. Weiner. AVell, what I was going to suggest is, again, the same
thing that we have in Colorado between State and local agencies,
that we peiTnit localities to set more stringent standards, because in
some locations, they are needed. Wouldn't it be possible to permit
more stringent standards to be set for vehicles by some States, and
have, let us say, a Federal emission standard, and permit the States
to be more stringent, if they could ?
I realize this is not going to find a happy audience in Detroit, but
I think it would be a better situation all round.
Senator Muskie. You put your finger on one of the points that
troubled us in 1967 when we were considering these two approaches.
It was clear from the testimony then that when we talked about na-
tional emission standards, we were talking about minimal standards,
whether it is automobiles, or steel mills, or paper mills, or any other
polluters. And there are two difficulties : One, that if you are dealing
with the kind of national technology which you have in the automo-
bile, and you contemplate the possibility of requiring 50 makes, 50
different models of automobiles in a given year to fit 50 different sets
of standards, you impose perhaps an impossible requirement.
The other side of it is that minimal standards tend to be interpreted
as licenses to pollute. And industry says, "Well, now, these are the
Federal standards, and we meet those. So if we meet those, that ought
to be good enough." You are right back where you started from, be-
cause the people will say, "Now, if you force us to do more than the
Federal standards require, you are going to drive us out of business."
These businesses will go into States which are content with the Federal
standards.
43-166 O — 70 — pt. 1 .6
76
See what yoii get into ? , „ , , i i
Dr. Weiner. Yes, I can see, and I would prefer that the standards
which woukl be acceptable in the high altitude regions of Colorado
be adopted na;tionwide. This would be ideal, because it would mean
less pollution.
Senator Muskie. Yes, but it also may mean that if we designed these
standards to meet Colorado conditions, the standards might not meet
conditions in other States. You might be imposing difficulties upon
other States that they would be just as restive under as you are with
respect to the present national standards.
Dr. Weiner. I don't see how an emission standard which would be
acceptable in Colorado would be unacceptable anywhere else, because
the difficulty in Colorado is that because of the relatively low oxygen
pressure at high altitudes, you get less complete burning of fuel than
you do at lower altitudes, so that the carbon monoxide and hydrocar-
bon problem is always worse. _ .
Our big problem with cars is incomplete combustion, and this is
where our standards should be more stringent than low altitude stand-
ards, so it seems to me that a standard that is acceptable at 10,000 feet
is certainly going to be preferable at sea level, too, because the engine
functions much more efficiently.
Senator Muskie, When you talk about the automobile, I think you
must have — and this is the whole theory behind the 1965 act — the
toughest standards that technology permits. That ought to mean as
soon as possible emission free, I don't buy the view that the 1965 act is
geared to Los Angeles, or to Maine, or to some other place,
I think we gave California an exemption from the preemption fea-
ture of the 1965 act because California has the most urgent problem
and is in a better position to press against the frontiers of technology
than some other areas would be inclined to do. But we think that what-
ever it is possible to do, and I think we ought to press to expand the
possibility, ought to be done ; but ought not to be geared to some accept-
able level of pollution from the automobile. If we do not now have
standards with respect to the internal combustion engine that are even
slightly tougher than technology permits, then we haven't done a good
enough job.
Dr. Weiner, Well, then maybe this is the problem. One of the prob-
lems with standards is, in my opinion, they can never be in terms of
parts per million. Parts per million is a concentration standard, and
you can always meet these just by putting more air through the engine,
which is in fact done; they should always be in terms of grams per
mile, which is an absolute standard.
Senator Muskie. I think that is the new measure.
Dr. Weiner. That is the new measure and, in addition, I don't see
any reason for having very big engines. You are always going to get
the situation where given the ultimate level of control of the internal
combustion engine, a 400-horsepower engine pollutes more than a 90-
horsepower engine, and I see absolutely no reason for having anything
over 200 horsepower.
IVlio needs it anyway ?
It seems to me that these things should either be outlawed outright,
or taxed very heavily.
77
I don't see why anyone would want them ; if they were not so heavily
advertised, nobody would want them, and this is one of our major
problems.
Denver depends very heavily on automobiles for transportation —
much too heavily — and this is one of our big problems, that the
people drive these things with huge engines, and they turn on 300
horsepower to go down to the store and get a box of Wheaties, and who
needs it?
This is where the immediate control should come.
Now, I am speaking as a citizen. I don't sell cars. We have only one
car. I ride a bicycle to work.
Senator Muskie. As a matter of fact, maybe more often than not,
we ought to walk to the store and get that box of Wheaties, rather than
ride at all. Should we go that far ?
Dr. Weiner. Well, (there should be some control, and if it is
immediately only in the direction of small engines, it seems to me this
should be done.
There is no pollution-free internal combusion engine. Such a thing
thermodynamically can't exist. Nor, for that matter, can a pollution-
free of any other type engine.
This is part of the trap, if I can talk about physical chemistry ; it is
part of the trap we are caught in with the second law of thermody-
namics, that there is no machine that is 100 percent efficient, and you
are always throwing out waste heat.
Senator Muskie. Of course, we could go a step further. We could
say what I think is quite true. In a consumer-oriented society, anything
we produce and use ends up as waste, so that maybe we ought to pro-
hibit rises in the standard of living, because the rise will be more con-
sumer products. The more consumer products we have, the more waste
we have to dispose of.
You are talking about the size of an automobile engine. It goes
much beyond that. Take the new types of containers that are being
produced. If we went back to the old glass bottle, we would have less
of a difficult kind of waste to dispose of than we have now. This is a
problem in a consumer-oriented society. How far do we go ? I am sure
it is an area of inquiry that will open up more and more as public
concern with the environment intensifies.
How far do we go in actually limiting the kinds of products that
can be produced, the kinds of consumer tastes to which private enter-
prise will be free to serve? Just what limitations do we impose, in a
consumer-oriented society, that is also free in the kinds of products
that we manufacture, the kind of products that people can buy?
It is relatively easy to say — the size of an automobile engine is an
obvious one. But then you go beyond tliat, and we are going to have
disagreement as to how big an automobile engine. Then there are
going to be those wlio say maybe we ought to go to something else,
that we ouglit to get away from the internal combustion engine alto-
gether.
On this kind of decision, for instance, I raised this question. It is
conceivable there is emerging — the SST may be an example — there
is emerging a technological development that can be just as serious in
terms of the environment as the internal combustion engine has proved
to be.
78
We have no mechanism for preventing the reemergence of that kind
of a development. We couldn't prevent Henry Ford from inventing
the automobile today. AVe couldn't prevent him from mass-producing
it. We couldn't prevent him from distributing, so something like that
could develop again. In a free enterprise society, there is no way of
inhibiting it or limiting it.
It wouldn't necessarily be in the field of transportation. It could
be in the field of some household appliance.
The disposal is such a thing. At the very time when water pollution
was already a runaway problem, we put the disposal on the market.
And we put into the waste treatment plants and the streams of our
country the things that we formerly sent out to the dumps, either for
landfill or the incinerators.
We moved the pollution from one form to another, and greatly in-
tensified this one. There is no way to limit that. You have opened up
a very interesting field of inquiry.
Dr. Weinp:r. Well, if I can answer your comment for a moment, I
also agree with you, incidentally, about total waste, and it seems to
me there are two ways of approaching it.
One is the incentive method. If people realized the relative pollution
of large engines versus small engines, or some sort of containers
versus another, there could be incentives to use the less polluting
form as long as there is a choice, and in most cases, there is a choice,
and you don't have to use a disposal, either.
Perhaps it would be better if you didn't.
Senator Muskie. Yes, but we all feel that somebody else's waste is
the real problem.
Dr. Weiner. Well, I am for one thing very much opposed to the
"no deposit, no return" bottle. These things are immortal, anyway,
and I think we should stop using them, and go to consumer pressure to
reuse as much as possible.
So there is the incentive mechanism, and it seems to me that we
could put incentives on the greater promotion of smaller engines.
And there is also the question of equal time in advertising. Now I
noticed that the people w^ho are opposed to cigarette smoking have
obtained equal time to answer the cigarette ads.
I wonder what would happen if we could obtain equal time to an-
swer the 400-horsepower car ads ?
Senator Muskie. Cigarettes have been taken even beyond that. After
1970, advertising is absolutely prohibited. Should we have a govern-
mental agency deciding which consumer products should be permitted
to be advertised and which ones not ?
Dr. Weiner. No, I don't think we have to go quite that far, but I
do in all seriousness make the equal time suggestion.
Senator Muskie. Who will pay for that time ?
Dr. Weiner. Who is paying for it in the case of cigarette ads? It
has been done as a public service.
Senator Muskie. It is the proliferation of products that you are
going to try to provide equal time — that is the problem.
As a matter of fact, it is the problem in the political field. You see,
it is easy to deal with the problem in presidential campaigns. But when
you get down to all of the other campaigns. Senators, Congressmen,
Governors, local councilmen and so on, there isn't enough time on the
air.
79
You have a similar problem with cigarette advertising related to
health. Public opinion finally supports legislation to prohibit it, or
to control it, at least. But if we give this kind of control to all products
that contribute to waste, which means all products, would there be
enough time?
Dr. Weiner. Well, I am just making the suggestion, as something
to think about.
But the additional problem Avith cars is that there is Federal subsidy
of highways and Federal subsidy of suburban housing tliat promtes
further use of aiutomobiles. This subsidy should be reversed.
We have two instances in the Denver metropolitan area right now,
branches of the Interstate System that, by the State highway depart-
ment's own admission, are being constructed only because Federal
money is available.
These are Interstate 470, and Interstate 1 South. Interstate 470
goes from nowhere to nowhere. It runs around the southwest, comer of
Denver just east of the foothills, and there is nothing there at present,
not even suburban development. Of course, once the interstate is there,
there will be. This is also a temperature inversion pocket.
The smog problem will be tremendous, if there is ever any buildup
of housing. Interstate 1-S again runs just east of the mountains from
Boulder north to, I guess, about Fort Collins or Loveland, or some-
thing like that. It parallels Interstate 25, which already exists, is not
that heavily traveled.
We do not yet have the need for these highways, and of course, once
the highway's are built, like every other highway, they will be used,
and we will get lots and lots of use, and more and more cars.
We need a subsidy for mass transit system. We don't need any more
subsidies for highways.
And I wish I could make this point more strongly. Denver could
really benefit from a good urban, interurban, and intraurban mass
transit system. It would benefit the many elderly people who live there
who are physiologically unable to drive cars. It would benefit the poor
people, who now can't get to jobs.
AVe have a huge Hispano population in Northwest Denver. They
can't get to Southeast Denver. The Denver Technological Center is
miles away from the nearest mass transit. This is true all over.
We have dispersed industry, and we desperately need a mass transit
system.
If we had one, we could make the tourist attractions that are within
a 20- or 30-mile radius of Denver that much more available to people
who now really have only an individual automobile to get there. And
this has been the direct result of Federal highway subsidy, and I think
this highway subsidy is ruining us.
I recognize this is somewhat beyond the scope of this subcomrnittee,
but it is a real problem, and if there were some way to reverse it im-
mediately, I would be all for reversing it immediately.
It was wrong ever to put an east-w^est interstate highway through
Colorado, I think everyone admits that now. It is just criminal.
You go and you see these bulldozers just chopping up the moun-
tains, and it makes you ill, physically. There are places where we now
question whether the interstate should go at all,
I don't know if you have heard about the Glen Canyon controversy,
but this is all part of the same problem, and the continued subsidy of
80
roads leads in effect to an increased nse of cars and a promotion of a
sort of "one man, one car" philosopliy, and especially in the urban
areas, this has got to be reversed right now, if we are ever to get any-
where with this.
Finally, I would like to say a word about visible emissions. There is
plenty of evidence that visible emissions from diesels can be completely
controlled, and it seems to me here is a national standard that we do
need to go to, and that is zero visible emission from diesels.
Again, this is a particular problem at high altitudes. It is not a
health problem, but it is centainly an esthetic problem.
You get these buses going over the passes, and the snow all around
the highway is black. Sometimes you can't even see the bus, it is so
black.
Senator Muskie. I guess any one of us who has been stuck behind
a diesel on a two-way road knows.
Dr. Weiner. We have tried in Colorado at various times to pass
laws prohibiting visible emissions from any vehicle, and we have been
unsuccessful in doing this, and here is some place where w^e need
Federal help.
Senator Muskie. I might remind you that during the war I was a
destroyer escort engineer. We had this sort of emission. We were re-
quired, under the interests of the security on seas, to so operate our
engine plants that there were no emissions because emissions were
visible at great disance. It was possible to do it — to operate them, and
to maintain them — at levels that would absolutely cut out emissions.
We did it.
It drove home a very good lesson to me. Of course, one of the great
problems concerning not only diesel engine emissions but emissions
from all vehicles is maintenance, which is dependent upon owner
conscientiousness and attention. If every automobile and truck was
operated at the highest standard of performance, that would mean
periodic trips to the service station. You could greatly reduce emis-
sions without any new technology. But then, you might have the
problem of finding the help at these service stations to carry the load.
Dr. Weiner. We also have the pi-oblem that many diesel trucks,
the interstate trucks, are tuned for low altitudes, and they are not
tuned for high altitudes, and this gives us an additional visible emis-
sion, and then to get over the passes, they gim the motors, and just,
you know, quantities of unburned fuel come out. I am sure that
the visible emission is also in proportion to the invisible not com-
pletely burned fuel emission, so that the whole problem is worse.
Senator Muskie. I think you are right.
Dr. Weiner. And we could get rid of that some way.
The problem of Federal grant aid has been a difficult one, and
again, I speak from my own experience since we have just been through
passing a new law. It is very evident that the same factions in the
State that are opposed to air pollution control in the first place are the
sarne ones who don't want Federal control. They are apt to be State
legisktors in Colorado who don't believe there is any such thing as air
pollution because they don't live in Denver, and where they live, there
isn't any.
We had a problem with our recent legislation where a given pro-
vision, had it been included, would have made us ineligible for Fed-
81
era! grant aid. The same people who want it included, also don't
want us to get the Federal grant aid, so in a sense, witliliolding
of Federal funds, if the State laws or implementation plans are not
adequate, is punishing the wrong people. It is punishing the people
who are trymg to get good pollution control in the first place.
I don't know how you handle this problem. I really have no solution
to offer; maybe a direct Federal intervention. In other words, if the
State does not come up with an appropriate plan, then the Federal
Government substitutes their own jDlan for it.
Senator Muskie. How about a little people pressure?
You sound to me like — and this isn't the first time I have had the
privilege of listening to your concern and articulateness— a great po-
tential leader for building up public pressure in Denver, Colorado has
passed some good laws on this subject.
I am sure you are constantly trying to strengthen them, but I think
as compared to other States, Colorado has done reasonably well.
Dr. Weiner. Well, I don't point this out as a theoretical problem.
During our present fracas over the law, we actually had one legislator
get up and say on the Floor of the House, "Well we don't want that
Federal money anyhow."
Senator Muskie. I am sure of that, although it doesn't happen often
enough, as I look at our Federal budget.
Senator Dole. You had better give us the name.
Dr. Weiner. Finally, we have a problem which is probably peculiar
to Denver. We have had Federal installations, which really contribute
fairly heavily to the pollution problem, and the worst one is the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, which is immediately north of Denver.
Presently, the Arsenal is undertaking a demilitarization program of
stored mustard gas and ner\^e gas. Aside from the unpleasantness
of having enough nerve gas to wipe out the city of Denver several
times over stored about 20 miles north of Denver, we also have the
problem that the Amiy is intending to burn the nitrogen mustards, and
this is going to release large quantities of both nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxide.
The original proposal was that they would wait until the wind was
right — ^toward eastern Colorado, I presume — so that the smoke
wouldn't blow over Denver, but it seems to me that the arsenal could
afford 'to burn absolutely clean. They are not in the business of making
a profit. It is going to cost them less in any case to get rid of the stuff
than it cost them to produce it in the first place, and I see no reason
why stringent controls should not be applied.
They have said that they will comply with the StaJte law — our
present State law — which is not terribly good. Even the new one would
not much address itself to this problem, and finally, we can't get
much indication of what it is they actually are emitting, because some
of these processes are classified.
Now, HEW does have monitors, within the confines of the arsenal,
but they won't tell the State enforcement agency what it is they are
emitting.
There is also a Shell pesticide plant within the arsenal grounds. They
lease land from the arsenal, and workers at the Shell plant say that
on Interstate 70, which is somewhat south of there, and on Interstate
25, they can smell the chemical constituents of the pesticides being
released.
82
We know that there are plant breakdowns, and that stuff does get
by tlie filter and does get emitted into the air.
These are, chemically, bromine and chlorine compounds, and
pesticide precursors. Tliey are not good for you in any case.
We have had several episodes of very bad odors, where people ac-
tually did get sick, in the Commerce City area, which is quite close to
the Shell plant. These episodes could never be traced to anything
largely because the State enforcement agency has no idea of what is
being emitted.
And it seems to me a simple way to clear up this problem would be
to give a fairly high-ranking official in our State agency a security
clearance, so that at least he could be the recipient of this information,
and could work with the Federal installation to control the emission.
Right now, it is a very scary business. We don't know what is
being emitted ; we don't know how dangerous it is, and we don't know
to what extent it is covering the Denver area.
We also have this problem with the Dow plant operated for the
Atomic Energy Commission at Rocky Flats, and I am sure that even
here in Washington people are aware that there has recenitly been evi-
dence found of plutonium oxide in the soil, all around Denver, which is
emitted at one time or another from Rocky Flats.
Again, this is a secret installation, they do classified work, and we
have no idea of the extent of radioactive wastes leakage from this
plant.
On a minor basis, we have the same problem with Fitzsimmons
Hospital, with the Veterans' Administration hospital, in Denver; they
emit and they feel quite free to emit in violation of the State laws,
even our present State law, which is not a very good one, and it is
more or less a continuing problem of cooperation and liaison, and
perhaps something could be done about this at the Federal level, but
we are simply unable to do in Denver.
Senator Muskie. I agree with that. It has been of concern to this sub-
committee, almost from the time it was created, to try to make the
Federal Government a good citizen, a good environmental citizen, and
it has not been easy.
Two questions from the Executive Office. I think it might be well to
include both at this point in the record, just so that we have that
record.
Congress is about to approve the Water Quality Improvement Act
of this year, which creates some additional tools in this area. I think
maybe one of the stickiest kinds of problems is this one that deals with
Defense Department facilities of the kind you are concerned with
here in your statement.
Perhaps we ought to look at them to see what we can learn about the
problem from our vantage point here. The Federal Government
should set an example for the industrial establishment.
Senator Muskie. Please continue. Dr. Weiner.
Dr. Weiner. The question of Shell is a particularly sticky one, be-
cause this is a private industrial operation, which to the best of our
knowledge, is not doing any classified work, and because it is on gov-
ernment land, the State inspection people have a great deal of diffi-
culty entering and inspecting and monitoring their emissions.
And here, I have no idea how this problem is handled, but it seems
to me Shell should have definitely come under the State enforcement
S3
and the emissions there are quite obviously detrimental to public
health.
Senator Muskie. The Secretary of HEW, as I said earlier, will be
testifying tomorrow. We will be happy to bring these to his attention
and ask the Department to check out the ponits you have made.
Dr. Weiner. Well, that is the end of my statement.
(Dr. Weiner's prepared statement follows :)
Prepaked Statement of Ruth Weinek, Representing Colorado Citizens fob
Clean Air
My name is Ruth Weiner, and I am here as representative of the Colorado
Citizens for Clean Air, Inc.; an organization of about 250 members, of which I am
chairman. I am also representing the Colorado Open Space Council, Inc. a fed-
eration of 26 organizations interested in environmental preservation, with a
cumulative membership of about 25,000, mostly residents of Colorado. I am pres-
ently on the faculty of Temple Buell College in Denver, as assistant professor of
chemistry ; I received the Ph. D. degree in physical chemistry from the Johns
Hopkins University in 1962.
The Air Quality Act of 1967 was evidently intended to assist states in setting
up strong and effective air pollution control programs. If the act is to accom-
plish this end, some fundamental revisions are needed. First, the ambient air
standards promulgated under Section 108 of the act have become, in fact, a
kind of low numbers game. The uitility of ambient air standards in achieving
clean air is questionable. Ideally, of course, the ambient air quality goal for each
region should be zero for purely man-made pollutants and background for those
pollutants that also emanate from other than man-made sources.
In the long-range view of the overall pollution problem, we should not permit
ourselves the view that we will remain satisfied with some level of ambient air
pollution, because the total pollution burden of the atmosphere only increases —
it can never decrease. We must instead adopt the attitude that any source of
pollution which can be controlled, must be controlled. Any ambient standard
above background becomes, in effect, a license to pollute up to a certain amount.
No community or air quality region can elect to live with a given level of air
pollution, because the air does not stay over that community.
It is also not clear by what criterion NAPCA will find a given set of ambient
air standards acceptable or unacceptable. The Denver region is a case in point.
A little smog goes a very long way in Denver, and the level of SO2 (which does
enter into the photochemical smog reaction) which may be quite tolerable at sea
level, may well be intolerable in Denver. No one, including NAPCA, has yet
made a systematic correlation of monitored levels of pollutants with the aver-
age person's perception of "bad smog." Colorado Citizens for Clean Air is pres-
ently engaged in such a study, and I believe it will be the first in the nation. In a
city like Denver, where the visibility is more than 60 miles on a clear day, photo-
chemically producer haze is much less tolerable than in other parts of the coun-
try. What we think of as "bad smog" may be considered quite acceptable else-
where, and I cannot see how this situation could be judged by NAPCA.
As far as particulates are concerned, the background in the Denver region, at
Cherry Creek Dam, is quite high : 55/xg./m.' annual arithmetic mean. If NAPCA
does not take this into account, and they do not appear to, how can they judge
our ambient standards?
The intent of the act is that NAPCA should judge whether a region can meet its
ambient goals with its implementation plan. There are only two methods for
judging the efficacy of an implementation plan : the very crude method of
estimating percentage contribution of each sources, and a diffusion model. Even
the latter can only approximate the actual situation. There are pollution sources
in the Denver basin, such as agricultural burning in the surrounding counties,
that the diffusion model cannot take into account. Nor does the diffusion equation
as it now exists consider photochemical reactions between pollutants which
play a large part in Denver's smog problem. The diffusion model cannot do this
because neither the rates of these reactions nor. in most eases, the mechanisms,
are known or understood. A diffusion model concerned only with SO2 and par-
ticulates makes little sense for Denver anyway, because our primary problem is
NO and NO-
Finally, the Federal criteria concern themselves primarily with health effects,
and we should not permit any level of pollutant at which there is any dis-
84
cemible short-term effect on humjan, plant, or animal life. Such a level is already
much too high, since we have no way of predicting long-term effects of lower
levels of pollutants. Iristead of ambient standards, we shmild have natiomvide
emission standards, for every known pollutant and every known emitting proc-
ess. The criteria for these should be the greatest possible level of control, and
should be revised at least every other year as better controls become available.
I would like to turn my attention briefly to the subject of vehicular emission.
Federal pre-emption of emission standards for new vehicles has hurt Colorado.
Because of the altitude, intense sunlight, and consequent ease of photochemical
smog formation, we cannot tolerate as much vehicular emission as lower alti-
tude areas. We need more istringent emission standards, not only for the state
as a whole, but even with greater degrees of stringency in those parts of the
state above 8,000 feet above sea level.
Because of rapid growth in recent years, and the FHA subsidy of suburban
housing, the residents of Denver depend too heavily on private cars for trans-
portation. We have a totally inadequate mass transit system, which is con-
stantly on the verge of bankruptcy. In addition, we are victims of the Federal
road subsidies. Right now, tvm branches of the interstate system, 1-470 and 1-15,
are being planned in the Denver region only because Federal money is available,
and for no other apparent reason. If I could make only one appeal, it is this : stop
subsidizing highways now and subsidise mass transit systems instead !
Although I recognize that this plea is somewhat outside the scope of this bill,
I want to bring it to your attention. In Denver we are caught in a smog trap : the
Federal government refuses to let us set our own standards for vehicular emis-
sions, although their effect is demonstrably worse in Denver than elsewhere, and
at the same time seduces our state highway department into building more and
more roads and producing housing patterns that force more car use.
Automobile emission standards should never be in terms of parts per million
(ppm), which is a concentrated measurement, Imt always in terms of an
absolute measurement such as grams per mile. Large engines, which in fact
always pollute more than small ones can meet ppm standards by putting more
air through the engine and diluting the exhaust. In general, a car pollutes in
direct proportion to the engine displacement. In my opinion, engines of more
than 200 cubic inch displacement on automobiles should be either outlawed
outright or very heavily taxed. No one needs them and no one would want them
were they not so heavily advertised.
Visible emissions from diesels and jet engines should be outlawed nationwide.
Diesels can be totally controlled — this is evident even at Colorado's altitudes.
I would like to deal briefly with the question of federal grant aid to state
pollution control programs. You must remember that the same elements in
a state legislature which do not want pollution control, also are not anxious
to have properly funded enforcement programs. They are, in fact, delighted
if federal money is withheld, and are only too glad to write laws to make sure
that this happens. The people in a state who suffer by withholding of Federal
funds are exactly those who are working for stronger pollution control. As a
punitive measure, withholding of Federal funds punishes the wrong people.
Isn't there another way?
I would like to ask the aid of the committee in a problem which is perhaps
peculiar to Denver. We have two installations very near Denver — the Rocky
Flats plant of Dow Chemical Company and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal —
where classified work is done. We have good reason to believe that the latter
installation, and the Shell Chemical Company plant within its confines, con-
tributes substantially to the air pollution problem in Denver. The demilitariza-
tion of the nitrogen mustard gases at the Arsenal involves production of large
quantities of oxides of sulfur and nitrogen. The pesticide production at the
Shell plant releases pesticide precursors and other toxic chemicals used in the
production process into the air. Some of these are identifiable by their char-
acteristic odor in north Denver.
HEW monitors emissions at the Arsenal, but will not release this data to the
state enforcement agency — the Colorado Department of Health. If the nature
of this data is also classified, surely at least one high-level state employee
could be appropriately cleared to receive such data. It should be mandatory
for this type of data to be shared with the state enforcement agency, so that
we may know where these emissions fix into the total pollution picture. In
fact, it should be mandatory for all Federal installations to operate absolutely
clean. W^e in Denver are not happy about the proximity of the Arsenal, because
of its vast stores of nerve gas. At least the Arsenal, and other Federal instal-
lations, should not contribute to our air pollution problem.
85
Senator Muskie. Thank you.
I have asked you several questions in the course of your testimony.
1 would like to invite Senator Dole at this point to ask any questions
he might have. , -, , ^ -n
Senator Dole. I read your statement and don't have any specihc
questions. . . , i i
We in Kansas flock to Colorado because it is known as the clean air
country. I wonder what polluted air will do to your tourist business.
However, I was particularly interested in your comments concermng
Veterans' hospitals in Denver.
Now, what specific problems do you have there?
Dr Weiner. I think it is just with their incinerator and heating
plant, that , ■, -r -, -, , x j
Senator Dole. I visited there a number of times, and I hadn t noted
any smoke billowing in the air, but maybe I didn't look in the right
place. 1 /A u J
Dr. Weiner. It varies very much from day to day. On very bad
inversion days, we sometimes get a temperature inversion where the
mixing level of air close to the earth, with higher air, is no more than
300 feet, and on very bad inversion days, it kind of collects over the
hospital. . 1 • u
These are also extremely cold days, so that it is a cumulative prob-
lem. Mostly, I think, from the heating plant, and the incinerator,
things of this sort.
Senator Dole. Are there any other Federal installations m the
Denver area that we might check on?
Dr. Weiner. I don't know of any, but I am sure that the Colorado
Department of Health would have this kind of information. They keep
pretty good tabs on the Federal installations in and around Denver.
Also, the Denver Air Pollution Control Agency would know. But
these are the only ones that I know of.
Senator Dole. Do these two agencies see any improvement? Do
you visit with them frequently?
Dr. Wiener. Yes ; we certainly do, and that is another whole story
in itself. We have very poor enforcement of our own laws. I don't
quite know why this is. We have a relatively nonaggressiye State
agency, and up until the new law was passed, which was just last
week,\ve have had overlapping jurisdiction between State and local
agencies, and in the Denver area, for example, we have three agencies,
the Denver city agency, tricounty, which are the three counties sur-
rounding Denver, and the Sta.te agency, and what they do most of the
time is bicker with each other, instead of cooperating with each other,
but this is a problem that I am at a loss to see how the Federal Gov-
ernment can help us out with.
Senator Dole. Well, they could provide another party to bicker
with. That would be three instead of two.
Dr. Weiner. Maybe that would be a good thing.
Senator Dole. The question I raised, then, and I am not familiar
with either the ordinances in Denver or the State laws— do you feel that
if they were adequately enforced, many of your problems could be
resolved?
Dr. Weiner. Yes; I very definitely do. There would not even have
been a need for a new State law, had the old one been really adequately
86
enforced, and had we had any kind of an aggressive State enforce-
ment agency.
One of the problems, incidentally, is that the CAMP monitor in
Denver is run by the city of Denver agency, which then won't release
data to the State or to the citizens on request, and we have had to
threaten them with suit under the Colorado open records law, so that
they would give us the data from the monitor.
This is just one instance, but another thing has resulted: because
the State enforcement has been so poor, the legislarture is reluctant to
appropriate more money to an agency that hasn't done a good job with
what they received in the first place.
We hope to rectify some of this with the new laws, because we have
set other somewhat more stringent guidelines for the State agency,
and we have eliminated some of the overlapping jurisdiction between
the State and local agencies.
Senator Dole. Of course, this is an area that we can't do much
about here, but it emphasizes that perhaps additional laws aren't as
necessary as enforcement of existing provisions. The chairman has
pointed out that takes people pressure at home.
If you have the law, and it is not being enforced then concerned
citizens must act.
Dr. Weiner. It is very difficult to put pressure on civil servants, who
are completely insulated from this sort of pressure, and this has
been our problem, really.
They don't have to listen to us, if they don't want to listen to us,
and they don't want to listen to us.
Senator Dole. You have seen some improvement because of the
efforts of people like yourself?
Dr. Weiner. We have seen some improvement. I would say it is a
concerted effort. We do have a couple of members of our State legisla-
ture, notably Senator John Birmingham, who continuously needles
them, needles the State agency into better enforcement procedures, and
we can do this somewhajt^ through publicity. That is, they don't like to
get a lot of phone calls complaining, and so on, and there is eventually
a response.
But it is very difficult to put pressure on people who are in a position
where they are not immediately affected by any pressure.
Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Muskie. On this question of potential people to achieve
response, you obviously agree with the concept that there ought to be
public participation and the setting of public policy in this field.
You are aware that under the Air Quality Act of 1967, as well as
the Water Quality Act, we have built in the whole concept of public
participation in the setting of standards ?
Dr. Weiner. Yes.
Senator Muskie. You suggest that this isn't always as effective as
it might be. I was interested in the development of the air quality
standards for the city of Pittsburgh. I don't know if you followed
that or not.
Dr. Weiner. A little bit, yes.
Senator Muskie. The conference was set, under the law, and it
was set for a relatively small room. But somebody took hold and
87
generated public interest. The crowd that descended on that room
obviously exceeded its capacity.
So the room was changed. There was such great public interest
that industry statements which had been prepared were filed rather
than read. The hearings were pretty much, I think, dominated by
public testimony, with the result that we have quality standards in
Pittsburgh which have been described by the National Air Pollu-
tion Control Administration as the toughest established in the coun-
try under the act. Here is a very specific instance of how effective public
interest, concern, and response can be.
The problem always is to sustain public interest so that there is
follow through as well as an initial burst of interest. This is the great
problem, which I am sure you run into, as I used to, years ago, before
I was in politics, and just involved in civic affairs.
Dr. Weiner. It is also quite a different thing to generate public in-
terest for a single hearing, which we also did when we had our Fed-
eral hearings in October, and we were helped along by the fact that the
day before was one of the worst smog days Denver had ever ex-
perienced, and to sustain public interest in the more detailed and
less immediately romantic aspects of air pollution control. Someone
has to attend all the various board hearings, keep needling the State
agencies, when you see that they are not enforcing, and this is difficult
and time-consuming, and it is something that most citizens are not
technically prepared to undertake.
Senator Muskie. What you have to do is operate your public pro-
grams much as taxi drivers or chauffeurs or drivers of Russian cars
years ago used to ; I don't know if they still do or not. But in 1959, I
spent 30 days in the Soviet Union, and I was taken by the way that
the Russian drivers handled their automobiles. They would build up
a burst of speed, 70, 80, 90 miles an hour, and then shift into neutral,
and just coast for as long as the car would run. Then they would turn
on the engine again and build up another burst. They did this on
mountain roads. It scared you to death. You would be coming down
a corkscrew road, and they would build up to top speed then turn off
the engine, go into neutral, and coast.
In a way, you almost have to do that with public opinion in this
country. You have to build up speed at a crisis stage and then coast.
You have to hope that the momentum will carry you through some
of these jobs, dull technical periods of the formation and implemen-
tation of public laws.
Dr. Weiner. I must say that the Federal act has been very help-
ful in helping to generate public opinion, and helping to guarantee
public participation.
If we had this kind of activity in all conservation efforts, we would
be way ahead, in the environmental game.
Senator Muskie. We think the public participation is important.
The administration bill would eliminate that feature of it. I hope we
are able to persuade the administration to a different point of view.
I don't know what was involved in reaching that decision.
We will have an explanation of that tomorow, I hope, but I think
that these public conferences and hearings on the setting of standards
are a terribly important part of this whole process. I would like to see
them continued.
88 '
Dr. Weiner. If I can comment on the new bill in that respect. 1
Senator Muskie. Yes.
Dr. Weiner. It is very dangerous to limit public participation,
because as it is, the citizens groups don't have the facilities, they
don't have any staff; ours, for example, has none whatsoever, nor
any money, and it is very difficult to make our presence felt at all,
in the first place, and if it is not encouraged a little bit, it will just
never haf^pen, and things will move out of the hands of the citizen
entirely, and into tlie hands of those groups that have more immediate
access to legislatures and to enforcement agencies than we have. I
think this would be a very bad thing.
Senator Muskie. Thank you. Dr. Weiner.
Thank you very much for the contribution you are making in this
whole field.
Dr. Weiner. Thank you for having me appear.
Senator Muskie. Our next witness. Dr. Vincent J. Schaefer, is di-
rector. Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of
New York at Albany.
Dr. Schaefer, it is a pleasure to welcome you here this morning, sir.
STATEMEITT Or DR. VINCENT J. SCHAEFER, DIRECTOR, ATMOS-
PHERIC SCIENCES RESEARCH CENTER, STATE UNIVERSITY OF
NEW YORK, ALBANY, N.Y.
Dr. Schaefer. Thank you. Senator.
I am Vincent Schaefer, director of the Atmospheric Sciences Re-
search Center of the State University of New York at Albany.
I have been measuring atmospheric particles for more than 25 years.
Much of the effort of my group at the university is directed toward
basic and applied research in the air pollution problem.
I might say that the testimony and comments that we have just been
hearing from Professor Weiner are very much to the point and I think
beautifully demonstrate the kind of problems that we are all con-
fronted with, both those in the political arena as well as in the uni-
versities, and with the general public.
I wish we had a great many more people like Professor Weiner.
I would like to present some of the evidence I have been accumulat-
ing for the past 10 years related to the effect which is exerted by very
small particulate matter and gases.
The particles I wish to discuss have a size range from 0.1 to 0.3i
micron. Many atmospheric particles are smaller than 0.5/a and in fact,
the majority are quite invisible to the unaided eye. Even the most
sensitive light microscope will not resolve most of them.
Wliile these particles have very little mass, they constitute the larg-
est number of the particulates in polluted air.
Concentrations of these particles in different environments I have
given in a table, and this table indicates the sources, as we have meas-
ured and observed them, and the degree of pollution which seems to
be related to those measurements.
89
(The table referred to follows:)
TABLE 1.— POLLUTION RANGES (INDICATED BY CONDENSATION NUCLEI (CN))
Degree of
Typical source Concentration of particulates pollution
Oceanic and polar air.. _ Less than 1,000 per cubic centimeter Clean.
Country air 1,000 to 5,000 per cubic centimeter Light.
Suburban air 5,000 to 50,000 per cubic centimeter... Medium.
Urban and industrial air More than 50,000 per cubic centimeter Heavy.
Dr. ScHAEFER. In oceanic and polar air if we measure the total num-
ber of particles, for example, we find in general less than IjOOO per
cubic centimeter. And we consider that concentration to be quite clean
air. That is the characteristics of the global backgroimd of particulates
at the present time.
Senator Muskie. Does that global background build up at all?
Dr. Schaefer. It has, unfortunately. It used to be that measure-
ments showed 50 to 200. Now quite frequently, we find 1,000, under
the same kind of conditions.
For example, if we go to a place like Newport, Oreg., and wait for
the air to move in from the ocean, for 2 or 3 days we will get the values
that we generally find in the middle of the Pacific. It takes 2 or 3 days
to get true oceanic air because of the effluent of the continent, the eddy-
ing around of the particulates from the continent that come from
pollution.
In many places, where one used to find what I would call clean
air, I have observed a tenfold increase in the past 10 years.
That, I think, is one of our problems, and that is why I am so
concerned about the small particles which are invisible.
Senator Muskie. And these particles are carriers.
Dr. Schaefer. Absolutely.
Well, I intend to say something about that. Senator.
In country air, which is the cleaner air that is available to dilute the
polluted city air such as lias happened in the past we find 1,000 to 5,000
per cubic centimeter. This we consider to be characteritsic of light
pollution.
Suburban air, as we are now measuring it, contains 5,000 to 50,000
per cubic centimeter, which we consider to represent a medium degree
of pollution, and then in the urban and industrial category of air —
values of more than 50,000 up to 500,000, depending on where the
measurements are made.
And, of course, that is heavy pollution.
Senator Muskie. May I ask you this question ?
Dr. Schaefer. Yes.
Senator Muskie. You have classified these as degrees of pollution.
Is that an official classification ?
That is a trial balloon. Senator. We are trying to obtain a concensus
among the people that we are in contact with. Thus far we seem to
have fairly good agreement among the scientific community that we are
in touch with, and we are just proposing these values as something
that we would like to have considered because our experience indicates
that these categories represent a realtistic classification.
90
Senator Muskie, So now you have four categories: Clean, light,
medium, and, heavy.
Dr. ScHAEFER. That is right.
Senator Muskie. Have you gone to the point of defining what those
mean in terms of health effects, or esthetic effects ?
Dr. ScHAEFER. Not yet. Senator. These are things we are working
on at the present time.
Senator Muskie. Those categories are simply a measurement of the
physical side of it ?
Dr. ScHAEFER. That is right, yes.
If one looks at the air along a freeway or other heavily traveled road,
very little if any exhaust smoke can be seen coming from the traffic.
Going through a long vehicular tunnel, however, a blu sh haze will be
seen in the air and if windows are open a foul smell can be noted. Such
air contains tremendous numbers of small particles as well as gases
of combustion, particularly CO, CO2, the nitrogen oxides and
hydrocarbons.
Measurement of the small particles in such restricted places will
show values which may be higher than 500,000 particles per cubic
centimeter. Similar measurements along roads frequented by automo-
biles commonly exceed 150,000 per cubic centimeter since the auto is
now a major source of the polluted air in all large cities. Small par-
ticles, even those which are quite invisible, are playing an increasingly
important role in the pollution problem of America.
First of all, as you just mentioned, Senator, they serve as carriers of
other substances. This is particularly true of carbon particles. Instead
of being a solid chunk of matter, most tiny carbon particles consist
of cage-like structures of extremely small primary particles chained
together into a space enclosing skeleton. Such particles are essentially
inert but they can serve as frameworks on which gases adsorb and
other liquids and solids agglomerate. While carbon is probably a very
important "getter" for gases and an effective nucleus for other liquid
and solid particulates, a vast host of other substances behave in a sim-
ilar manner or coalesce to form microscopic liquid droplets.
I am dismayed by the all-pervasive bluish and greyish hazes that in-
creasingly Tmit the visibility of distant hills and mountains and even
the ground as seen from a high-flying plane, and I might mention that
this morning, flying down from Albany, it was exactly this situation.
From takeoff until landing here in Washington, the visibility was lim-
ited to 5 to 7 miles, and, as far as I could see, the pollution was up to our
flight level, which was probably about 20,000 feet.
A particularly distressing feature of this hazy atmosphere is its uni-
formity and massive extent. I commonly notice it over at least half
of the United States, am not surprised to see it on the continental scale.
On several transoceanic flights during the past 6 months — one to Ja-
pan, the other to Czechoslovakia — I have seen evidence that it may
have reached global continuity, at least in the middle latitudes of the
Northern Hemisphere.
The source of such widespread pollution is not easy to establish.
It is now possible to fly over large cities such as Los Angeles without
seeing a single visible smoke source. In fact, I have considerable diffi-
91
ciilty in recent years to ascertain the direction of the wind at low levels
as I could in the past by using smoke plumes as wind indicators.
Pollution control agencies have succeeded in eliminating nearly all
visible sources of air contamination in many urban localities. Visible
smoke sources are relatively easy to detect, and those responsible can
be cited and penalized.
If most visible plumes have been eliminated, why are we confronted
with an increasingly serious air pollution problem ? The blame can be
placed quite easily — most of the pollution comes from effluents which
consist of invisible particulate matter and accompanying vaporous
gases which cannot be seen when they are released into the atmosphere.
It is easy to demonstrate this principle. If a large transparent plastic
bag is placed over the exhaust pipe of an idling automobile, it will be-
come full of an ordorous effluent in a few seconds. This bag is now
filled with air, water vapor, gases and particulate matter, the latter
having a concentration of lOycc or more.
With a simple instrument— the Gardner small particle counter is
what I use, available from Gardner Associates, Schenectady, N. Y. — the
concentration of small particles can be determined. Such a measure-
ment shows that a typical idling automobile engine emits at least 100
billion small particles per second. Most of these particles are sub-
microscopic and invisible. However, if the bag is observed carefully,
it will soon have its inside coated with a dense layer of water drops,
and if some of the trapped effluent is transferred to a box made of
clean sheets of glass and illuminated with a strong beam of light, such
as a home movie or slide projector, a visible bluish or grayish shaft of
scattered light will be seen.
Because of the very high concentration of particles emitted by the
idling motor, the original invisible particles have coagulated to "form
the now visible aerosol.
Thus a measurement of the number of particles in the sample after
20 minutes will show a drop in concentration of a hundredfold as
coalescence proceeds and the particles become visible by their scat-
tered light. Very few particles fall out, however, since the effect of
gravity on such small particulates is negligible.
As particles grow from their original invisible size range of 0.02
microns to the visible sizes of 0.1 to 0.3/x diameter — producing a bluish
haze— their light scattering effectiveness becomes quite noticeable,
especially in the blue end of the visible spectrum. Such particles
scatter almost as niuch light back toward the illuminating sources —
such as the sun — as in a forward direction.
This effectiveness in the scattering of visible light reach a maximum
with a diameter of about 0.6/x, and it was this feature that caused us
to produce particles of that size during World War II when we suc-
cessively hid our armed forces from surveillance and bombing at the
Anzio Beachhead in Italy and during the crossing the the Rhine River
in Germany.
There has been a tendency on the part of some engineers and others
to employ afterburners and similar devices to vaporize an effluent
so that ordinarily visible emissions are reduced in size so as to be-
come invisible. Where this is done in a manufacturing process, only a
measurement of the stack effluent with a small particle counter or ob-
servations by a careful observer will detect the subterfuge.
43-166— 70— pt. 1 7
92
Thus, a phimeless chimney or clean-looking jet engine or an auto-
mobile exhaust pipe does not necessarily mean that the removal of an
offending pollutant has been achieved. In fact, I believe that in some
instances the so-called improvement produces a worse situation than
before.
One of the other subtle results results of this shift from large to
small particle size in the pollution production of a large city is that
the "dust fall," high-volume sampling and other measurement at
ground and building top level will quite likely show a decrease from
earlier measurements. This can be very misleading since the end results
will be the extension of the effect of the city into regions down wind of
the source.
During the past few years I have seen the plume of the Los Angeles
Basin area in such areas as the Owens Valley, the Mojave Desert, The
Charleston Mountains in Nevada, and a few weeks ago in the vicinity
of Palm Springs and Palm Desert. I have even observed pollution
plumes from southwestern California near Spokane, Wash., and
central Nebraska when carried by low level jet streams.
To measure such plumes, one must depend primarily on aircraft
although during my recent observations in California I was able to
obtain data by direct measurements at the desert floor and on the slopes
and near the summit of the mountains called Baldy, near Claremont,
and San Jacinto, near Palm Springs.
While the hot flame temperature needed to vaporize an otherwise
visible effluent might achieve improved combustion, it also oxidizes
some of the natural nitrogen in the air to produce nitrogen oxides. In
addition to being poisonous, these gases are believed to be an important
catalyzer for the photochemical reaction which converts liydrocarbon
vapors to particulates.
When converting visible particles to invisible sizes, the residence
time of such particles is also greatly extended. Thus a very large aero-
sol particle of say 50 microns (0.002 inch) diameter if ejected into the
atmosphere at the top of a 100-meter (300 feet) chimney would fall
to the earth in less than 15 minutes.
If such a particle was vaporized and then condensed so that the
resulting particles were invisible (say 0.02 microns in diameter) a
single 50 micron particle would produce more than 10 billion of the
smaller size.
Such particles would have a residence time in the atmosphere of
months or years depending on where thej were carried by the wind
or whether they were removed by precipitation. As mentioned earlier,
gravity has little effect on such particles. They are primarily removed
from the atmosphere by growing much larger through agglomeration,
a very slow process, by the scavenging effects of snow or rain, or dif-
fusion to various objects on the earth's surface.
If the vaporized particles recondensed to form a bluish smoke
(around 0.2 micron diameter), a single 50-micron particle would pro-
duce about 10 million of the smaller size but they also would have a
residence time in the atmosphere of weeks or months unless removed by
the processes just mentioned.
This points up one of the many problems which will develop when
high flying aircraft such as the SST fly in the stratosphere in large
numbers. The stratosphere is a very stable region without benefit of
93
a cleansing mechanism like snow or rain. We must consider the possi-
ble effect of lariie concentrations of small particulates and gases such
as would be emitted into this region and the effect which an accumu-
lation of these aerosols on the present equilibrium of that region of
the upper atmosphere. What will such pollutants do to the ozone
concentration, the radiation balance and similar properties?
Thus far I have not succeeded in obtaining satisfying answers to
these questions.
The effect of small particles on health is becoming recognized. I
liave recently suggested tliat a possible additional hazard confronting
the smoker is that air pollution particles passing through the burning
zone of a cigarette are vaporized and the lungs then serve as a test
tube where synergistic reactions can occur to form a myriad of exotic
particles coating the surface of the entire respiratory tract.
Thus the persons who smoke in an urban air region commonly in-
sult their lungs with the vapor from at least fifty to a hundred
thousand more particles than produced by the burning tobacco.
This then brings me to ni}- final point wliicli is related to inadvertent
weather modification. I am convinced that man-caused pollution raises
a host of new problems which I didn't contemplate when in the 1940's
I was conducting my experiments of seeding supercooled clouds with
dry ice fragments and other substances.
Supercooled clouds were of common occurrence in the Northeast
and in fact we carried out more than a hundred experimental seeding
flights in New York and New England between 1946 and 1950. Ex-
tensive areas of supercooled clouds were of common occurrence and
in our Project Cirrus activities we learned many scientific facts about
the possibilities and limitations of cloud modification durng that
period.
I vrould be reluctant to conduct a similar research program in that
same area at the present time. It is my experience over the past 5 years
that extensive areas of supercooled clouds are of less frequent oc-
currence and that massive areas of ice crystals at low level and more
frequently encountered than 20 years ago. These high concentrations
of low level ice crystals are so high as to produce brilliant undersuns '^
sudi as we only saw during our early experiments in stable, heavily
seeded areas produced by our experiments.
Where are these ice nuclei coming from? I have presented my ideas
on this source in several papers published in the scientific literature.
I am not alone in my findings. Briefly stated, we have found abundant
evidence that a potent source of ice nuclei is to be found in air polluted
with automobile exhaust from leaded gasoline. Submicroscopic lead
compounds apparently react with small quantities of iodine vapor to
form lead iodide. These activated nuclei must be very small to be most
effective since they apparently act as sublimation nuclei ; that is, the
water molecules in the air form ice ciystals directly from the vapor
phase.
^ The undersun is an optical phenomenon caused by the specular reflection of the sun
from the surfaces of myriads of hexagonal plate ice crystals. It occurs at the same angle
below the horizon as the sun is above it. In order to produce an undersun, it is necessary
for the crystals to consist of smooth-surfaced plates which float with their long axes hori-
5:ont:il to the ground. Thus they act as many tiny mirrors. If the crystals were not
hpxr.gonal plates but rather prisms, the optical effects would include under parhelia and
other reflections which are well known and have been related to crystal types during our
winter studies at Yellowstone Park.
94
If these particles were larger so that the water condensed to form
liquid droplets the lead compound would dissolve destroying its effec-
tiveness as an ice nucleus. The number of these potential ice nuclei in
polluted air is from hundreds to a hundred thousand times more than
is found in clean air.
I have also observed and photographed a great many examples of
high concentrations of ice crystals in polluted air. Such areas are so
extensive that I believe they could exert an effect on the weather pat-
terns over America.
I previously described the misty rains and very light snows which I
believe can be attributed to automobile pollution. An interesting and
rather paradoxical effect can be postulated which suggests that a super-
abundance of effective ice nuclei over extensive areas could reduce as
well as increase precipitation. High concentrations of ice nuclei would
stabilize clouds containing low amounts of liquid cloud water and thus
reduce or prevent precipitation.
On the other hand, if a rich source of moisture moved into a region
and entrained extensive areas of polluted air containing many poten-
tial ice nuclei, it could produce excessive amounts of snow or rain.
This is not to say that only pollution can cause a reduction or an in-
crease in precipitation. What I anticipate based on an increasing
amount of cause and effect field observations I have obtained is that
the frequency of such unusual weather phenomena may increase as air
pollution increases.
In conclusion I would like to emphasize that we are dealing with an
extremely complex problem which will require a much greater involve-
ment of our total society than has occurred at present. The type of
legislation required at the Federal level must consider aspects of the
problems that can't be solved by the individual States. I am sure that
we must also establish global rules of conduct if we are to halt the
rapid deterioration of the environment that has alarmed us.
I believe that the university community has an important role to
play in solving some of these problems. It is heartening to see the
way in which many young people in our universities are espousing the
cause of environmental improvement. They are actively seeking edu-
cation and guidance in their concern and have responded in a wonder-
ful manner to our action programs.
The time is passing when the American community will tolerate
arrogance, hypocrisy, or cynicism on the part of anyone or any group
whose activity will further degrade the quality of our environment.
This is not a fad. Anyone who believes it is does so at their peril.
I am an optimist. Any system that can put a man on the moon in
10 years can certainly solve the teclmioal aspects of our pollution prob-
lem. At the same time we must rethink our sense of values and prob-
ably reorder many of our current procedures so that together we can
seek goals that are addressed to community well-being in every sense
of the word.
Senator Muskie. Thank you. Dr. Schaefer, for your excellent paper.
Since you spent considerable time in your paper emphasizing the
fact that some of the present technology dealing with particulate mat-
ter exacerbates rather than solves it, do you have any thoughts to
communicate to us about what are the best approaches to deal with it?
Dr. Schaefer. Yes ; I think I do. I would say first of all eliminate
95
leaded gasoline. I think that the leaded gasoline could lead us to prob-
lems, I mean, serious problems in terms of climate, much sooner than
we are ligely to be troubled with a lack of air to breathe.
Xow I could be wrong about that, but the more data I gather, the
more concerned I become, that we are already in a situation that might
be producing atmospheric change.
Tlien I would certainly agree with Dr. Weiner's proposals that we
reduce the engine zine in our autos. I think it is absolutely ridiculous
tliat we should use the fantastic voliune of steel that w^euse at the
present time to move ourselves from one place to another. It just doesn't
make sense.
I think we have to establish much more effective ways of mass
transport. I think that is essential. _ ^ .
I think we should outlaw the use of private automobiles in cities.
You know, we are back to a horse-and-buggy speed in most of our
big cities.
Senator Muskie. Or even slower.
Dr. ScHAEFER. Yes; I saw it this morning coming down. Fantastic
traffic jams, on the roads leading into New York City. Intolerable.
I think we have to reduce the imnecessary use of electricity. The
electrical industry has done a marvelous job of selling the people
on the need for electricity. We don't turn off our lights, and we do
a lot of silly things, that I think are nonessential. We must begin to
reorder our sense of values.
In terms of what we do about small particles, I think we need to
completely reverse the present trend. We need to learn how to make
particles grow bigger faster, so we can use gravity fall to get the
particles out of the atmosphere. Once we have grown a big particle
it is a lot easier to grab hold of it.
Now, obviously, that is going to raise our solid waste disposal
problem, but I am sure you are aware of the fact that we have hauled
fly ash thousands of miles, because it makes better concrete. As I
have been told, some of our big dams in the West were built using fly-
ash as one of the components.
So I think there are a lot of good things that we can extract from
these effluents that at the present time we are putting into the at-
mosphere, in a way that we can't ever get it back again. It produces
hazy air which from my standpoint is inexcusable.
We heard about the deterioration of the situation in Denver. I first
saw Denver about 20 years ago, in a beautiful part of our coimtry.
I go back there quite frequently, because of some of the work I do.
It is dismaying to me to see the fantastic decrease in the quality
of the air that is occurring in that region. Something that my Denver
friends haven't yet considered — which relates to the refining of the
oil shale, in northwestern Colorado and the southern part of Utah.
Unless carefully plamied such processing will ruin one of the choicest
parts of America. The Colorado Rockies, are second to none, and yet,
we may not see them at some future time if the present trend of re-
source exploitation keeps on, which is tragedy.
Senator Muskie. In your response to my question, you emphasized
automobiles as a source of particulate matter, rather than stationary
sources. Do you intend that emphasis ?
Dr. SciiAEFER. No, I would say about half of our problem is from
automobiles. The other half is from incinerators, from our own in-
96
diviiliuil lieatiii^ plants, from trash burning, which is done without
much thouf^ht. There are all sorts of things, including the fixed instal-
latio]! of industry.
Now, as 1 said earlier, you go into a region sucli as any big city and
look for visible plumes, and you have great deal of trouble seeing
them, and yet there is the smog. And I am sui-e that at least half of
the smog comes from industrial processes of one kind or anotlier and
the other sources I just mentioned. If you reduce particulates to gases
then we have gas to particle reactions, which finally ends up as pro-
ducing this bluish haze I am concerned about.
Senator Mttskie. What is the ansvrer to that ?
Dr. SciiAEFER. Well, I think that one of the things wb.ich must be
done in terms of fixed installations, involves a redesign about how we
prit our industrial plants together. One of the things I have proposed,
and I am sure that a lot of people will not agree with me, is the elim-
ination of vertical chimneys. Chimneys are no longer used for which
they were originally invented. They were made to provide a draft
for a fire. The effluent from most chimneys nowadays, emerges four
or five times faster than it could possibly obtain from just the heat
of the chimney. Chimneys at present are nothing but atmospheric
sewer pipes just like a water outfall spilling into a river.
As I said earlier, I think we need to design a new approach, where
we have horizontal chimneys, if you want to call them that, Avhich
are designed in euch a way that we take advantage of gravity. We
malce the particles just as big as we can make them, so that gravity
will cause them to fall out.
Now, that is not going to be easy, and we have to put the best brains
of our scientists and technical people and engineers to address them-
selves to that problem. Once the particle enters the atmosphere as
an invisible or a bluish haze type of particle, there is nothing on earth
going to get it back exce})t slow diffusion and the scavenging by
precipitation.
Senator Muskie. You have no objection, I assume, to the electro-
static precipitator?
Dr. SciiAEFER. Oh, no, no, of course not. That is one very good way
of removing the smaller particles.
Senator Dole. My. Chairman ?
Senator Muskie. Yes, I will yield to Senator Dole for some ques-
tions.
Senator Dole. The staff has indicated that the Smithsonian Insti-
tute has recorded that since 1910 instant sunlight striking the Mall has
decreased 16 percent. Is there any evidence that this phenomenon is
not restricted to urban development? Is anyone studying this area?
What effect will this have on crop production in rural areas in the
next 10, 15, or 100 years ?
Dr. Schaefer. Yes, Well, Senator, this is the vei-v thing that con-
cerns me, because I am beginning to see this, in our"counti*yside. The
one trouble is that these very small particles, because they don't fall
out, diffuse and gradually work themselves up to the base of the
stratosphere, so we are getting more and more of the. troposphere filled
up with these small particles. It takes an awful lot of them to have
an effect on sunlight, to reduce "insolation"— incoming solar radiation.
97
It takes a lot of them to hide a mountain. But still, that is what we are
beginning to see.
And, the trouble is, the mass method of weighing atmospheric par-
ticulates is not going to really pinpoint the problem we are now up
against. Because you see, with a very small particle, about as much
light is reflected back toward the sun as comes through. That is an-
other factor, which is important.
And now that this vast region of tlie tropospliere is being affected
Avith these kinds of particles, then the kind of measurements that the
Smithsonian is noting is some of it from local sources, but I think a
lot of it is from a distance.
^Ye recently completed the tenth transcontinental flight made, at low
level for measuring small particles so we have obtained a feeling for
the three-dimensional nature of this atmospheric pollution on a large
scale. "^Miile it is true that the majority of the pollution materials are
in the lower 5,000 feet, concentrated in that location. There is an in-
creasing amount extending to the inversion level, at the top of the
troposphere at 30-35,000 feet.
Most people don't realize the tremendous amount of particulate
matter that is up there, and it is onl^^ when a stagnant air situation
develops that the region below the lower inversion begins to fill up,
and they become alarmed.
If they had to live at this inversion level they would have been in
trouble a long time ago.
Senator Dole. What finally happens to these small particles?
Dr. ScHAEFER. The only way that they are eliminated is as they serve
as nuclei for ice and snow or precipitation when they diffuse to the
precipitation particles. That is a x^rimary way in which the atmosphere
is cleaned.
Senator Dole. In other words, they stay in the atmosphere. Yester-
day was Sunday, for example, and I was flying around different cities,
Dallas, Kansas City, Dayton, and in every area there was a haze. And
this was Sunday, with no industrial plant operating that I could see.
So it just hangs around for clays, apparently.
Dr. Schaefer. Gravity has no effect on it, to speak of, because the
particles are so small, brownian motion drives them up just as much
as it drives them down, so they are just floating in the air until they
are cleaned up by precipitation. If we don't have precipitation, then
it just gets worse and worse.
Senator Dole. So it is not beyond speculation that, if something
isn't done in the next hundred years, that this might have an effect.
Air pollution that originates in Los Angeles may end vqy in the State
of Washington, or the State of Nebraska.
Dr. Schaefer. Right.
Senator Dole. So it is not beyond speculation that this could have
an effect not only in urban areas, but rural areas.
Dr. Schaefer. That is right.
Senator Dole. And even on agricultural products, and growth and
production.
Dr. Schaefer. These are some of the effects which are very diffi-
cult to assess, but I am sure are very important. And it goes way
beyond just the esthetic aspects of the environment.
98
As you point out, it could be changing our radiation balance, it
could be doing a number of things. We are not smart enough to say
what all of these effects are likely to lead to in relation to our health,
the corrosion of our buildings, and many other things that we haven't
thought too much about.
Senator Dol,e. Mr. Chairman, I need to go to another committee.
I wanted to point out that we have Congressman Hechler from West
Virginia, who has been long interested in this subject matter, visiting
this morning.
Thank you.
Senator Muskie. Thank you. Senator Dole.
It seems to me you have just ended in discussing another problem
that troubled us in 1967, and I think we need to refocus on today.
There was some feeling in 1967 for the idea of regional airsheds, as
a basis for creating the mechanism or the institutions to deal with
the air pollution problem and controls.
Is there, from your point of view, any validity to that idea ?
Dr. ScHAEFER. Very little. Senator. I feel that the airshed concept
is a very misleading one. I think it could get us into a great deal
of trouble. Unlike water, which follows gravity, the particles that I
am concerned about pay no attention whatever to gravity.
They are moved by the air. The air and its particles which we are
breatliing here probably was 500 to a thousand miles away a day or
so in the past.
And therefore, except for the nighttime inversions, which will cause
local build ups of particles over cities, I think the airshed concept is
a misleading one.
We in New York State are quite concerned about pollution and
I think we have done a very good job, in facing up to the kind of prob-
lems that we are confronted with on the local scene. But if we are get-
ting a load of particles, coming in from the West and the South or
the Southwest much of our effort will be diluted by pollution from
distant sources.
We have the evidence, and that is what really bothers me.
Senator Mtjskie. What variables are there in the atmosphere, varia-
bles, depending on local or regional conditions, that ought to be taken
into account in developing control mechanisms or control policy ?
Dr. ScHAEFER. We must initiate a much more comprehensive moni-
toring program. We must develop an aerosol climatology. There is a
small amount of work in this direction going on with the NAPCA
agency— the meteorological group which is located in North Carolina
are paying some attention to the problem but I believe they have only
one scientist who is really concerned about meteorological aspects of
pollution on a large scale.
I believe that much more attention needs to be paid to this problem,
and I think the Weather Bureau have the personnel who could do it.
They certainly need additional funds to focus a major effort in this
direction. I think it is very important.
I think, too, that one of the extremely important potential programs
for particulate studies, could be related to the World Weather Watch,
and the global atmospheric research program. Much more emphasis
should be paid to the global levels of air":pollution because after all,
we can do a good job in America, and if we are getting a big flow, of
99
these particulates coming in from distant sources, as I am sure will
occur then some of our work goes in vain.
It certainly isn't all lost effort, but we have to look at the atmos-
phere as a global problem.
Senator Muskie. You have emphasized that throughout your testi-
mony. I think it is very helpful.
You use the phrase "global continuity." I think that increasingly
we become aware that it is something more than a local phenomenon.
Dr. ScHAEFER. Yes.
Senator Muskie. And that what we do in one community, however
small, does have an impact, however small.
Dr. ScHAEFER. That is right.
Senator Muskie. On a much wider region than the local political
jurisdiction.
Dr. Schaefer. That is why it is so important for the Federal Gov-
ernment to move into this area in a way so that, for example, in a local
situation, where an industry is criticized for the damage it is doing
to the local environment, one of the things they camiot say is "Well, if
you don't like it, we are going to go somewhere else."
Well, thanks to your efforts, there is no place to hide in America;
but, on the other hand, there are many other countries that will toler-
ate this for a while, and the next thing we are going to hear is that
the industries are going to say, "Well, if you don't like it in America,
we will take it to some other country where they aren't concerned
about clean air."
So I believe that the U.N. must address itself, as it apparently is, to
this problem on a global scale.
Senator Muskie. In a very real sense, then, as the world's greatest
industrial country, we are mortgaging the future air supply of other
less industrialized or less developed countries.
Dr. Schaefer. We have made a proposal, rather informal so far, but
I think that this is one thing I would like to see given much attention,
is realted to the great reservoir of clean air which at the present time
is over the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. This is where the last really
clean air is located, together with the air in the polar areas.
We need to be monitoring the quality of this air on a much bigger
scale than we have, thus far achieved. I believed the U.S. Navy has a
major role to play in accomplishing this objective. It is just as im-
portant for the success of their mission as it is for our objectives. And
I would strongly urge that very careful thought be given that the
Navy be given the job of keeping track of this big mass of clean air.
This air is cleaned periodically by oceanic storms on a vast scale.
Senator Muskie. Senator Baker and I have introduced a bill that
we hope will stimulate widespread interest, a bill to create National
Environmental Laboratories. The idea is something much broader
in concept than the usual scientific research laboratory; something
comparable, I suppose, to the National Institutes of Health, in which
the total nature of the environment would be taken into account to
evaluate what we are doing to the environment, what we must do to
reduce our insults.
Dr. Schaefer. Yes.
Senator Muskie. Is it a concept to which you respond ?
100
Dr. SciiAEFER. I would respond in this way, Senator: I strongly
feel that something of this sort could be marvelous, provided the
people in those laboratories are the very best we can find in America,
if not the world.
There should be a small group of those people, and then they should
relate to the universities, in my opinion, because the universities have
very high competence in many areas which are not being effectively
used. I think a combined, hard-core national institute, with very
strong relationships with the best people in the miiversities, and
especially the younger people — one of the real problems in America
at the moment is we have trained a lot of brilliant young people, and
they can't get jobs, because they have been trained to be specialists.
One of the most serious problems confronting us is this large group
of bright 3'oung people are now^ being frustrated, because they have
been trained in an area where they can no longer use their brain power.
Now, fortunately, the environment is a problem that is almost like
a sink. I mean, there is almost no end to the things that have to be
done if we are going to solve the problems about which we are con-
cerned. One of the things we are addressing ourselves to at our univer-
sity is how do we retrain these brilliant young people enough, and
then how do we find suitable jobs for them after they have been
retrained ?
I personally think that there are going to be lots of jobs, but we
have to do a lot of this on faith.
Senator Muskie. In the age of specialization we have assumed
that as society became larger, more compliacted and sophisticated,
each of us had to narrow our perspective to that piece of it with whicli
we dealt. Actually the environment is demonstrating that we should
have been broadening our perspective all the time, becoming general-
ists rather than specialists.
Dr. ScHAEFER. Yes, of course. Well, I have mixed feelings about
this. I think we need the specialist who is also a generalist. I think the
specialist should at least have some understanding of the ecological
pattern that he fits into. I think this is terribly important, and this is
where I think the univereities and the lower schools have been
inadequate.
We need to start when the kid is, you know, just beginning to com-
prehend things, and then continue on from kindergarten on up, a so-
cial awareness of all of these complex relationships. And such a per-
son, a person educated in this general way, is going to be very careful
about what he does to his environment, because he will understand the
fragility of it.
Senator Muskie. I would like to ask another more specific question.
Dr. Schaefer.
You have expressed concern over the environmental air pollution
aspects of the SST. I wonder if you would summarize the reserva-
tions that you have with respect to the SST? I would like to refer vou
to the statement made by Dr. Bryson of the University of Wisconsin,
who said that at any one time there are 385,000 square miles of cloud
cover, produced by cirrus cloud formations stimulated by jet contrails.
I would like to have your impression of the SST's relationship to
that.
101
Dr. SciiAEFER. Well, I am not sure that the SST is likely to produce
a cloud cover. I sure hope it doesn't. If you look at the moisture rela-
tionships up there, it probably will take quite a lot of moisture to
saturate the air above the tropopause.
The tliin£T I am concerned about is the small particles will un-
doubtedly come from the exhaust. The small particles and gases, and
just what their lifetime is likely to be. I am not an expert on this
kind of reaction mechanics, and I am relying quite a bit on my
colleafTues to try to work up the answers ; but, when you attempt to get
firm iiiformation as to exactly what it is that will come out of the
tailpipes of the four jets per plane and the 500 or more planes that are
going to be flying, and then you work out the dimensions, a quick meas-
urement shows either that it is going to be on the ragged edge of being
important, or maybe it is going to be quite important. It doesn't say it
is of no consequence.
It is one of these iffy things, that perhaps, until we do it, we are
not going to be really sure that what we are saying is true.
But, on the other hand. I think we need to take an awfully hard
look at that. Is there a real need to go so far so fast ?
As one who does a lot of traveling, I find that it takes me a couple
of days to get back to normal when I land in Japan, so that saving
a few hours isn't really going to help mucli. So I think we have to
give a lot of careful tliought to the real value of such a thing. I think
it is a classic example of something that we certainly can do, but
is it the smartest thing to do it ?
And we are going to have many of these decisions that we liave
to make, over the next few years — including more power from elec-
trical powerplants.
I see electricity being used for a lot of rather silly things at ihe
present time. And I have a feeling that you know there is a limit
to all of such activties. We can't just keep on going up, in terms of
production of everything that we think that we have to have. I
think, basically, this is what the young people are saying: That we
have to begin looking at the values that we have developed in this
wonderful country of ours, and see whether or not there aren't some
tilings that need to be rethought.
I, for one, am willing to do without some things that I now
consider to be something I am entitled to, jjrovided I can see that
it is going to be good from the standpoint of everything else.
Senator Muskie. Institutionally, that is one of the toughest prob-
lems we face. How do we control consumer demand, and the many
ways we have to stimulate consumer appetites? It is a tough one.
Dr. ScHAEFER. We have to find, Senator, a much better way of
contacting the general public, and while I don't agree with every-
tliing that Vice President Agnew says, on the other hand, he hns cer-
tainly touched some tender nerves, in some of the things that he has
been talking about.
We have really not used our mass media as well as it could be used.
Now, I understand why these things happen, but when I see what
a magnificent job of communication can be done with radio, television,
newspapers and magazines, and the word of mouth, and see the lack
of imagination that we have permitted to develop in this country, it
is sometimes rather dismaying.
r 102
We are much smarter than what we do.
Senator Muskie. We don't concentrate enough on doing the
important.
Dr. ScHAEFER. I think you are right.
Senator Muskie. I think we have the capacity for doing it, if we can
agree on what it is.
Dr. ScHAEFER. Absolutely, and especially the young people. We
have a fantastic reservoir in our youth. I consider this our greatest
natural resource. Aiid yet we are doing a miserable job in using it.
Senator Muskie. I would agree.
Dr. Schaefer, I am going to include in the record at this point — and
there is no one here to object except me, and I won't— an article that
you wrote in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society for
last year. I think it would be a very helpful addition to the record.
Also' included will be an article written by you for BioScience.
(The article follows:)
[Reprinted from Bulletin of the American Meteonologieal Society, vol. 50, No. 4,
April 1969]
The Inadvertent Modification of the Atmosphere by Air Pollution
(By Vincent J. Schaefer, Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University
of New York at Albany )
ABSTRACT
There has been a very noticeable increase in air pollution during the past ten
years over and downwind of the several large metropolitan areas of the United
States such as the Northwest — Vancouver-Seattle-Tacoma-Portland ; the West
Coast from San Francisco-Sacramento-Fresno-Los Angeles ; the Front Range of
the Rockies from Boulder-Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo ; the Midwest—
Omaha-Kansas City-St. Louis-Memphis ; the Great Lakes area of Chicago-
Detroit-Cleveland-Buffalo ; and the Northeast — Washington-Philadelphia-New
York-Boston. The worst accumulation of particulate matter occurs at the top of
the inversion which commonly intensifies at night at levels ranging from 1000 to
4000 ft or so above the ground. This dense concentration of air-suspended parti-
cles is most apparent to air travelers. Thus, it has not as yet disturbed the general
public except during periods of stagnant weather systems when the concentra-
tion of heavily polluted air extends downward and engulfs them on the highways,
at their homes and in their working areas.
1. RECENT MODIFICATION OF OUR AIR ENVIRONMENT
Until recently there is little question that except in very exceptional cases,
natural processes dominated the mesoscale weather systems by initiating the
precipitation mechanism. The effluent from the larger cities was quickly diluted
by the surrounding "country air" so that at a distance of a few miles downwind
of a city, little evidence of air pollution could be detected.
The recent spread of urban developments due to better roads and the massive
proliferation of people and automobiles has led to a nationwide network of
county, state, and interstate highways. This interconnection of thousands of
smaller towns and with large cities and the phenomenal increase in auto, truck
and air traflSc has caused a massive reduction in the regions which have
"country" type air. This increase in massive air contamination is of fairly
recent origin. It is not easy to document this fact in the detail I would prefer
since we have not had reliable automatic recording equipment for measuring
Aitken, cloud and ice nuclei until the last few years. However, using simpler
devices with which we made measurements at a number of scattered locations
during the past ten years, we have in the past year used the same techniques
to make comparative observations. The measurements indicate an increase in
airborne particlates at these sites of at least on order of magnitude during this
103
ten year period. At Yellowstone Park in the winter-time which has the cleanest
air we have found in the continental United States, the background levels of
Aitken nuclei have increased from less than 100 to the 800-1000 ml"-^ range within
a five-year span. At Flagstaff. Ariz., where in 1902 the background levels ranged
from 100-300 the concentration now lies between 800-3(KKl. At Schenectady. X.Y.,
the average concentration of these nuclei has risen from less than 1000 to more
than 5000 with values occasionally exceeding 50,000 ml-\
While it is difficult to ascribe these increases to any one cause, it is obvious
that the increased demand for electric power, the large increase in garbage and
trash incineration and the automobile, are likely to represent the major sources
of increased pollution, especially since many industrial plants have been forced
to reduce their pollution due to more rigorous regulations.
Just as it is not easy to place the blame for increased air pollution specifically
on the power plants, incinerators and automobiles, it is equally difficult to demon-
strate clear cut or unequivocal atmospheric modification to these sources. I am
confident that in time there will be ample proof of these effects which are now
inadvertently modifying the atmosphere.
The presence of high concentrations of visible as well as invisible particulates
above and downwind of our cities produces a heat island effect as real as a sun-
drenched Arizona desert or a semitropical island in the Caribbean.
Those cities like Boston, New York and Philadelphia which are not affected
by geographic barriers as is Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, or Denver are able to
get rid of miich of their effluent whenever the wind blows. Their plumes of air-
borne dirt extend as visible streamers for many miles downwind of the source
areas. In the case of the metropolitan New York City-northeastern New Jersey
complex, these plumes will be found in the upper Hudson Valley, in southeastern
New England or over the Atlantic Ocean.
Commercial airline pilots flying the Atlantic are often able to pick up these
pollution plumes hundreds of miles at sea. Hogan recently obtained data which
provides a quantitative measurement of the New York effluents near the surface
of the Atlantic between the United States and Europe. This same paper [1] amply
demonstrates a similar zone of air pollutants being exuded over the seas sur-
rounding Europe, the British Isles and the east and west coa.st of the United
States.
2. PROPEBTIES OF MARITIME AND "COUNTRY" AIR
We have known for twenty years that maritime air is characterized by low
levels of both cloud droplet and Aitken nuclei. Vonnegut [2] showed by a very
simple experimental device that about 50 effective nuclei at low water satura-
tion droplet formation existed on the upwind coast of Puerto Rico where the
trade wind clouds are seen. We were all much surprised when we established
the nature of trade wind clouds during our research flights near Puerto Rico in
1948 [3]. Following these activities, I pointed out [4] the large difference notice-
able even then between the "raininess" of the clouds upwind of the island and
those which formed over the land after entraining the polluted air from San
Juan, the sugar fields and refineries, the cement mills and the myriads of char-
coal pits which dotted the island, each sending out its plume of bluish smoke.
In our studies in the vicinity of Puerto Rico we observed that in many instances
trade wind clouds would start raining by the time the clouds had a vertical
thickness of not more than a mile while those over or immediately downwind
of the island often reached three times that thickness without raining.
During a continent-wide flight over a large area of Africa, I found [5] an even
more spectacular effect of inadvertent cloud seeding. As a result of the massive
bush and forest burning initiated by the inhabitants preceding the onset of the
rainy season, huge cumulus clouds, some of them reaching a height of more than
35,000 ft. (vertical thickness 4—5 miles) were observed which were not producing
any rain. Instead the clouds grew so high that very extensive ice crystal plumes
hundreds of miles long extended downwind of the convective clouds. No evidence
of glaciation was ob.served in the side turrets of the clouds indicating a deficiency
of ice nuclei at temperatures warmer than the homogeneous nucleation tempera-
ture of — 40C. Thus it appeared that the precipitation process was being con-
trolled almost entirely by coalescence and that so many cloud droplet nuclei were
being entrained into the clouds from the fires below, that the coalescence process
was impaired so that no rain developed. If ice nuclei were present, they were
probably deactivated by the high concentration of smoke particles and gases
flowing into the base of the clouds. Similar effects have been observed on a
104
smaller scale in the Hawaiian Islands. During the trade wind cloud regime,
clouds which form over sugar cane fields when they are burned prior to harvest
are actually larger than the surrounding clouds but they have never been ob-
served to rain even though smaller ones nearby produce showers. Warner more
recently has documented such observations [6].
A further observation of secular change in the microphysics of clouds has been
observed in the vicinity of large cities during airplane flights through convective
clouds. The observations I have noted in particular were made in commercial
twin engine planes over the past ten years. Of recent years it has been noticed
that such clouds often have so many. cloud droplets in them that visibility is re-
stricted so much that the engine is hardly visible. In my earlier observations I
can never recall being in clouds so opaque that the wing tips could not be seen.
Several of my colleagues have reported similar experiences.
Perhaps the most impressive field evidence of inadvertent weather modifica-
tion is the overseeding of supercooled clouds which is readily observed over and
downwind of our northern cities in the wintertime.
3. ICE CBYSTALS FROM POLLUTED AIR
Although I have been observing such phenomena for more than ten years, the
effect was brouglit to my attention in a vivid way during a flight from All)any to
Buffalo on 20 December 196.3. After flying above a fairly thin deck of supercooled
stratus clouds downwind of the Adirondack Mountains, I noted a massive area of
ice crystals above and downwind of Rochester, N.T. The crystals were so dense
that the reflection from the nndersun* was dazzling. Since that time I have
observed similar high concentrations of crystals at low level above and down-
wind of most of the large northeastern cities such as New York, Albany, Utica,
Syracuse, and Buffalo as well as Detroit, Chicago, Sacramento and Los Angeles.
In all instances the ice crystals were observed at low level (below 5000 ft. above
the ground in most instances), and extending for at least 50 miles downwind of
the city sources and without cirrus clouds above the areas affected. In a few in-
stances when the plane passed through the crystal area, I observed the particles
to be like snow dust, though in a number of instances after landing I observed
very symmetrical though tiny hexagonal crystals drifting down from the sky.
4. MISTY RAIN AND DUST-LIKE SNOW
For the past several year I have also been observing a number of strange snow
and rain storms in the Capital District area in the east central part of New
York State. These storms consist of extremely small precipitation particles. When
in the form of snow, the particles are like dust having cross sections ranging
from 0.02 cm (200 m to 0.06 cm (600 fi). When in the form of droplets, they
often are even smaller in diameter, at times being so tiny that they drift rather
than fall toward the Earth. When collected on clean plastic sheets, the precipita-
tion is found to consist of badly poilluted water. It is a well-known fact that pre-
cipitation "cleanses the air." In the past much of this cleansing action has been
ascribed to the sweeping up of suspended aerosols by rain and snow. Little atten-
tion has been given to the possibility that submicroscopic particulates from man-
made iMllution may in fact be initiating and controlling precipitation in a pri-
mnry manner rather than being involved in the secondary process wherein pre-
cipitation elements coming from "natural" mechanisms' serve to remove the
particles by diffusion, collision and similar scavenging processes.
My first evidence that there might be substances in urban air which would
react with other chemicals was encountered while studying ice nucleation effects
at the General Electric Research Laboratory in 1946 [7]. At that time I found
that laboratory air contained aerosols which would react with iodine vapor to
form very effective ice nuclei but that when the air was free of particulate mat-
ter, no further ice particles would form.
*Note : The undersun is an optical phenomenon caused by the specular reflection, of the
bun from the surfaces of myriads of hexagonal plate ice crystals. In order to produce an
undersun it is necessary for the crystals t;o consist of smooth-surfaced plates which float
■with their long axes horizontal to the ground. They thus act as many tiny mirrors. If the
crystals were not hexagonal plates but rather prisms, the optical effects would include
under parhelia and other reflections which are well known and have been related to crystal
types during our winter studies at Yellowstone Park
105
5. POTENTIAL ICE NUCLEI FROM AUTO EXHAUST
In 1966 I published a jmper [8] which suggested that air iwllution in the form
of automobile exhaust could account for the high concentration of ice crystals
which I have observed downwind of the larger cities in the United States and in
any area where a considerable number of automobiles are used. My laboratory
studies have shown that submicroscopic particles of lead compounds produced
from the combustion of leaded gasoline can be found at concentrations exceeding
1000 cm-3 in auto exhaust. These were measured by exposing auto exhaust sam-
ples to a trace of iodine vapor before or after putting the samples into a cold
chamber oi)erating at — 20C. Presumably this reaction with iodine formed lead
iodide which is an effective sublimation nucleus for ice crystal formation. Evi-
dence that the active ingredient in auto exhaust consists of submicroscopic parti-
cles of lead was determined by comiparing its temperature ice nucleation activity
pattern with that of lead oxide smoke produced by electrically sparking lead elec-
trodes which was also reacted with a trace of iodine vapor. One of the problems
related to the evidence that leaded gasoline is responsible for the ice crystals ob-
served in laboratory and fie'ld experiments concerned with auto exhaust is the
source of the iodine needed to pi-oduce the lead iodide reaction. All evidence thus
far encountered shows that only a few hundred molecules of iodine are required
to produce a nucleating zone for ice crystal formation. The amount of iodine re-
ported in oceanic [9] air (tlie order of 0.5 U G. m-^) is orders of magnitude
greater than would be required to activate such particles.
I have recently completed further studies in Arizona, New York and France
[10, 11] and have found that wood smoke and other organic sources add iodine
to the air which could react with the auto exhaust submicroscopic lead com-
pounds which are always present in urban pollution. Hogan has recently showed
[12] that similar reactions will proceed from the vapor phase.
Admittedly we are dealing with chemical reactions in the realm of surface
and even "point" chemistry as Langmuir termed such molecule by molecule re-
actions. This is an area of particulate research for which there is very little
experimental data or practical experience. The size of the primary lead particles
from auto exhaust which are 0.008-0.010 diameter are far too small for analysis
by any currently available chemical reaction techniques. All of my laboratory
experiments indicate that the submicroscopic particles in auto exhaust which
react with iodine vapor act only as nuclei for ice formation from the vapor phase.
No evidence has been found that they act as freezing nuclei.
6. THE EFFECT OP LAKGE CONCENTRATIONS OF ICE CRYSTALS
The presence of high concentrations of tiny ice crystals in air colder than
00 over thousands of cubic miles raises interesting aspects of the dynamics of
weather systems. Such crystals continually modify small supercooled clouds
soon after they foi-m. The net results is a reduction in the number of local
rain or snow showers and the production of extensive sheets of '"false" cirrus.
Bryson has pointed out (13) that cirrus sheets and even the presence on a large
scale of airborne dust exerts a measurable decrease of insolation. If a much
larger supply of moist air moves into such a region, the entrainment of high
concentrations of crystals by more vigorous supercooled clouds may trigger the
formation of a massive storm through the release of the latent heat of sublima-
tion. Langmuir described [14] such a storm system which he believed was
initiated and then intensified when dry ice in successive seeding operations
was put into the lower level of a rapidly developing storm.
7, FINDINGS OF PROJECT AIE SAMPLE
In order to determine whether or not polluted air above cities contained
particles which would react with free iodine molecules, eight transcontinental
flights have been made by Atmospherics. Inc., under our auspices during the
Fall of 1966 and 1967 and the Spring and Fall of 1968. A Piper Aztec aircraft
was fitted with instruments which could measure in a semiquantitative manner
the concentration of atmospheric particulates which would become ice nuclei
by the reaction with iodine, and which would also measure natural nuclei for
ice crystal formation. The iodine reactions were conducted in a cold chamber
at — 20C. The determination of naturally occurring nuclei was done at — 22C.
In addition, measurements were also made of Aitken nuclei (a measure of
106
polluted air) and cloud nuclei. This last measurement which is made at very
low water saturation is also a measure of the degree of air pollution since
values above about 50 cloud nuclei and 500 Aitken nuclei per cubic centimeter
is indicative of some degree of air pollution. The flight samples were made
mostly just below the top of the haze layer which ranged from 1500 to 5000 ft
above the ground throughout the flights. Of the 266 measurements in November
1966, 31 were made on the ground. All of these showed excessive pollution levels.
Great care was exercised in making these observations to avoid contamination
from the engine exhaust of the aircraft being used for the measurements.
At several locations observations were made above as well as within the
upper part of the haze layer. In every instance the air above the visible top of
the haze layer was low in lead particles while that just below the top or farthel
down showed very high concentrations.
All other locations where counts of the ice nuclei were low involved regions
free of pollution sources. Of the 266 observations 108 or 40% of the measure-
ments were in areas such a'' upwind of cities (9) ; above large lakes (8) ; above
haze l.-ryers (22) ; and above woods and farms (33). The 60% remaining had
values of potential ice nuclei of 100 per liter or more. Some 115, all of them
above or downwind of cities had values in excess of 200 per liter which I consider
would lead to definite over-seeding of the atmosphere with ice particles if suitable
moisture was available. Values of 1000 per liter or more occurred at 101 of the
stations. If concentrations of ice crystals that high occurred the cloud would
resemble a stable ice fog as occurs at Fairbanks, Alaska, or the Old Faithful area
of Yellowstajie Park [15] when the temperatures are colders than — 40C. With
crystal concentrations of this magnitude, the particles grow very slowly if at all
and thus remain floating in the air for extended periods. This then reduces the
incoming solar radiation to a noticeable degree. If such areas are extensive, they
caimot help but cause changes in the weather patterns of the affected areas.
Similar findings characterized our second, third and fourth round-trip trans-
continental fiights covering more than 25,000 additional miles and consisting of
over 1500 more observations. In practically every instance where polluted air was
present, hig'h values in potential ice nuclei (using the iodine reaction) was found.
The only exceptions were instances where the plumes of steel mills, forest fires
and other highly concentrated effluents were measured in areas where auto
exhausts could contribute very little if anything to the sampled air.
Fig. 6 [not reproduced herein] illustrates the type of pollution which still
occurs along Lake Erie at Buffalo and Fig. 7 [not reproduced herein] a zone of
snow falling from low clouds about eighty miles downwind of Buffalo at a loca-
tion where the iodine-activated nuclei had dropped from 5000 per liter measured
at Buffalo to 500 near Cayuga Lake and the Aitken count from 25,000 ml"^
to 4500 as measured at 3000 ft above the terrain.
Fig. 8 [not reproduced herein] illustrates' the fantastic amount of smoke which
shrouded the metropolitan New York area on 23 November 1966, when one of the
first dangerous smog alerts was sounded by New York City health officials. Just
prior to obtaining this picture the airplane was flown up through the smog. At 600
ft the cloud nucleus count was 2000 ml-i, the Aitken count 25,000 and the ice
nuclei measured were for the natural background and 50,000 to 100,000 per liter
for ice nuclei activated with iodine vapor.
Fig. 9 [not reproduced herein] shows the conditions at Albany, N.Y., on the
previous day. At 1200 ft the cloud droplet nuclei numbered 900 ml-i, the Aitken
count was 4000, the natural ice nucleus background was but the concentration of
ice nuclei activated with iodine was 50,000 per liter. These are concentrations
which are commonly observed in the air below the top of the invension over and
downwind of all large cities. In many instances the smoke concentrations in
such areas isi not as spectacular as shown in Figs. 7 and 8 since a considerable
portion of the pollution is submicroscopic. These aerial photos were taken bv
Thomas Henderson who also made the air measurements.
8. FLIGHT OBSERVATIONS OF INADVERTENT SEEDING
It is quite feasible to detect and observe the massive systems of ice crvstal
nuclei which produce inadvertent effects on cloud and weather systems due to
man's activities. This is accomplished most easily bv riding on the sunnv side
of a jet aircraft.
I observed and photographed three such systems in 1967 during a flight from
Buffalo, N.Y., to Denver, Colo., by way of Chicago, returning directlv from
Denver to New York City.
107
(a) Ice crystals related to polluted air
On Wednesday, 6 November 1967, I left Buffalo at 1035 by Boeing 727 land-
ing at Detroit and Chicago. Upon take-off I noted a heavy pollution pall over
Buffalo extending westward to the horizon. Just west of Buffalo we climbed
above stratiform clouds estimated to be at 15,000 ft or lower which consisted
of very high concentrations of ice crystals as established by an undersun. This
extensive zone of ice crystals was observed all the way to Detroit and was
associated with visibly polluted air. We flew at 20,000 ft where the temperature
was — 20C. Enroute from Detroit to Chicago I found the same condition to exist
from the 1108 take-off until 1132 at which time only supercooled clouds were
visible. At the same time all evidence of polluted air disapi>eared, visibility
between cloud decks was unlimited and no further trace of ice crystals could
be seen as we lauded at Chicago The air pollution from Chicago was being
carried to the southeast over Indiana about 30 miles south of our jet route.
(&) Ice crystals produced hy dust from plowed land
Upon take-off of Chicago in a Boeing 707 at 1320 CST, the air was clear,
several decks of stratiform clouds were visible with no evidence of ice crystals.
Heading west I saw no ice crystals until 1424. Just previous to that time a
peculiar zone of dusty air could be seen ahead of us extending toward the
southwest. Within a few minutes a brilliant undersun could be seen which
persisted for the next half hour. When we finally emerged from the affected
zone over northeastern Colorado it was quite obvious that the 300 miles long
zone of ice crystals was due to very extensive dust storms caused by 50-100
mph katabatic ground winds pouring down out of the Front Range of the
Rockies and blowing top soil from the extensive wheat fields extending from
northeastern Colorado to the region about 50 miles east of Pikes Peak. The low
level dust was rising only from tilled land, the grassy areas such as the Pawnee
Grass Lands were unaffected.
A similar massive dust storm which produced very extensive cloud seeding
was observed by me on the afternoon of 12 April 1967, between Amarillo. Tex.,
and Denver, Colo. This affected region was so extensive and had such a pro-
found effect on the Great Plains and midwest weather .systems that I was able
to identify it and see its effects over western Illinois two days later.
On the return flight from Denver on 8 December, a third source of inadvertent
weather modification was observed. Take-off in a DC9 occurred at 1206 MST
on a non-stop jet flight to New York City. Very fine snow was falling at the
ground upon take-off. Four minutes afterward we climbed above an extensive
area of ice crystals. A bright undersun became visible and was seen continu-
ously all the way from the Denver area to the Atlantic Ocean east of New
Jersey. Jet contrails appeared to be the source of these crystals throughout the
entire flight which was conducted at 37,000 ft. More than a dozen different
planes were seen coming from the east within the flight corridor we were using,
most of them several thousand feet below us. From time to time we were close
to contrails being made by planes at our level but ahead of us.
The most striking effect observed was the sharp line of demarcation between
the area affected by contrail seeding along our flight corridor and an extensive
area of high altocumulus cloud (or cirrocumulus) which paralleled our zone at
its southern extremity. This region of non-modified clouds was estimated to be
about 10 to 20 miles away and extended over large regions of the country.
I expect that an effect such as was observed could be seen on satellite cloud
photographs.
Perhaps the most disturbing feature about inadvertent weather modification
is that in a subtle manner it seems to be changing the nature of clouds over
increasingly large areas of the globe. Much of our current consideration of
cloud seeding assumes the ubiquity of supercooled clouds and the effectiveness
of a seeding material for triggering the instability of such systems.
If pollution sources lead to increased dustiness from ill-u.sed land, more cloud
nuclei from burning trash and many more ice nuclei from the lead-permeated
exhaust of internal combustion engines, not only w-ill we lose the possible
advantage we now have of extracting some additional water from our sky
rivers, but we might even be confronted with a drastic change in our climato-
logical patterns.
Interesting climatological evidence of inadvertent weather modification has
been found by Changnon [16] to exist in the area downwind of the Chicago,
Illinois-Gary, Indiana, complex of extensive urban, highway and steel mill
concentrations.
43-166— 70— pt. 1 8
108
A very noticeable increase in precipitation and storminess is evident in the
rt'oonls of the past three decades. The LaPorte, Indiana region whose record is
cited as evidence of this effect is downwind of the heavy pollution source men-
tioned above as well as the close proximity to a very moist air source in the form
of Lake Michigan. It is a common observation to see a lake effect street of cumu-
lus clouds extending in the convergence zone south and southeast of Lake
Michigan. The combination of very moist air and an abundance of ice nuclei are
apparently in very favorable juxtaposition for an optimum reaction to occur. The
LaPorte anomaly' was first observed by a local weather observer which was then
evaluated by Changnon. He found that there has been a notable increase in
precipitation starting ahout 1925 with definite increases since that time also of
the number of rainy days, thunderstorms and hail storms. There has been a
31% increase in precipitation, 38% of thunderstorms and 240% increase of hail
incidences. The increases show a marked correlation with the production of steel.
Since this data Vv^as obtained entirely from an evaluation of the climatological
records, it is of great importance that careful "on-the-spot" field observations
should be made in the LaPorte area to establish the atmospheric dynamics which
are responsible for the apparent change in the precipitation pattern of that area.
It is particularly important that the concentration of particulate matter be cor-
related with storm patterns. The weather systems at the mesoscale level should
especially be sudied to determine whether the area receiving increased pre-
cipitation is in the center or edge of the city-industrial plume effluent and the
properties of the moist air moving in from Lake Michigan.
9. EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF LARGE AREAS OP ICE CRYSTALS
During the past ten winters field operations have been developed by our Yellow-
stone Expeditions in which we have established certain relationships of ice
crystal concentrations in the free atmosphere. The early morning inversions of
the Old Faithful Geyser Basin in the wintertime often have liquid water con-
tents ranging from 0.5 to 1 gm m-^ This rich supply of moisture is contained
within a strong ground-based inversion having a vertical thickness of about 100
m. At a distance of 2000 m from a point source of seeding, ice crystal concentra-
tions up to 10,000 per liter have been measured. Such crystals at — 12C are hex-
agonal plates with cross sections of from ten to a thousand microns, the size de-
pending on concentration and moisture supply. Those of 200 fx, occur typically at
a concentration of 200 per liter with a fall velocity of 10 cm sec~\ The brilliance
of the undersun and related optical phenomena indicates that the number of
crystals observed in areas caused by air pollution, jet contrails or dust storms
often have concentrations as high or higher than observed in our experiments.
Thus at Yellowstone we have an ideal outdoor laboratory to study some of the
factors which must be better understood if we are to work out the physical inter-
actions resulting from the inadvertent modification of the atmosphere.
10. THE NEED AND OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THESE PHENOMENA
The effects cited are but a few examples of many which I have observed and
photographed during the past few years. It is the rule rather than the exception
that such massive zones of ice crystals can be observed over large areas of the
country which can be related to man-caused modification.
Such occurrences must be exercising a detectable effect on the weather systems
of the Northern Hemisphere. I feel that nowhere near enough effort has been
directed toward the establishment of an organized and continuing study to
determine the effect of such inadvertent seeding mechanisms on the synoptic
weather patterns of our country. Such studies should have a major place in
the World Weather Watch and the Global Atmospheric Research Project. I
strongly recommend that the part played by atmospheric particulates should
become an important research feature of this program.
There is a critical need for knowledgeable field scientists having an extremely
broad scientific background who can work effectively in the real atmosphere
under all types of conditions and extract quantitative and meaningful data from
such systems.
Our Universities must place far more emphasis on this type of training than
is being done at present. The eventual understanding of these complex inter-
relationships do depend on computers, electron microscopes, mass spectrometers
and other costly instruments and equipment. However, the real atmosphere is the
109
thing that must be understood and it is not enough to rely on data obtained by
automatic instruments and uninformed field men as is too often the case. It is
not easy to conduct efiicient field operations. We must approach nature to an
ever increasing degree but this confrontation must involve "intelligent eyes,"
an understanding of the physics, chemistry and electricity of the reactions which
can occur and a zeal to understand the things which combine to produce at-
mospheric phenomena.
REFERENCES
1. Hogan, A., 1968 : Experiments with Aitken counters in maritime atmospheres.
-/. de Rccherches Atniospheriqiies, 3, 53.
2. Vonnegut, B., 1950 : Continuous recording condensation nuclei meter, Proc.
First Natl. Air Pollution Symposium, Pasadena, Calif., 1, 36.
3. Schaefer, V. J., 19.53 : Final Report Project Cirrus Part I Laboratory, Field
and Flight Experiments. Report Xo. RL-785 General Electric Research
Laboratory. March 1953, Schenectady, New York.
4. — , 1956 : Artificially induced precipitation and its potentialities, Man's
Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, W. L. Thomas, Editor, Univ. of
Chicago Press.
5. , 1958 : Cloud explorations over Africa. Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sciences,
20, 535.
6. Warner, J., 1968 : A reduction in rainfall associated with smoke from sugar
cane fires^an inadvertent weather modification. J. Appl. Meteor., 7, 247-
251.
7. Schaefer, V. J., 1948 : The production of clouds containing supercooled water
droplets or ice crystals under laboratory conditions. Bull. Amer. Meteor.
Soc, 29, 175.
8. , 1966 : Ice nuclei from automobile exhaust and iodine vapor. Science,
154, 1555.
9. Junge, C. E., 1963 : Air Chemistry and Radioactivity. Academic Press, New
York.
10. Schaefer, V. J., 1968: Ice nuclei from auto exhaust and organic vapors. J.
Appl. Meteor., 7, 113.
11. , 1968 : The effect of a trace of iodine on ice nucleation measurements.
J. de Rccherches Atmospheriques, 3. 181.
12. Hosran, A., 1967 : Ice nuclei from direct reaction of iodine vapor with vapors
from leaded gasoline. Science, 158, 800.
13. Bryson, R. A., 1967: Is man changing the climate of the Earth? Saturday
Re'i>ien\ p. 52, April 1.
14. Langmuir, I., 1962 : Results of the seeding of cumulus clouds in New Mexico.
The Collected Works of Irving Langmuir, Pergamon Press, Vol. II, pp.
145-162. New York.
15. Schaefer, V. J., 1962 : Condensed water in the free atmosphere in air colder
than —40° C. J. Appl. Meteor., 1, 481.
16. Changnon, Stanley A., 1968 : LaPorte weather anomaly, fact or fiction. Bull.
Amer. Meteor. Soc, 49, 4.
[Repriuted for BioScience, vol. 19, No. 10, October 1969]
Some Effects of Air Pollution on Our Environment
(By Vincent J. Schaefer*)
The rapid increase in air pollution is a fact that even the casual observer
can see — and often smell. In some areas it is so bad that eye-watering conditions
from smog are not uncommon. This condition has happened and is actually
getting worse despite considerable effort on the part of air pollution control
officials, industry, and the enforcement of a number of local laws controlling
trash burners, brush burning, and other practices.
Many observers are puzzled about this buildup of pollution especially when
they notice that visible plumes from chimneys and smoke stacks are rarely
seen except from electric power plants, steel and pulp mills, cement plants,
and some chemical plants.
*The author is with the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of
New York .at Albany.
no
One of the major sources of air pollution consists of invisible plumes of
particulates so small, as they emerge from the combustion chamber, chemical
reaction, or gaseous vapor source, that they are optically invisible. Huch particles
have cross sections less than 0.1 ii. One source of such particles is the automobile.
When in good operating condition, the effluent from the auto exhaust pipe is
quite invisible. However, if one measures the number of particles emitted by an
idling automobile, it is the order of one hundred billion (1 X 10") particles
per second. Another potent source of invisible particles may actually result
from an air pollution law which is directed at the control of visible smoke
plumes. While this law was designed to force industrial plants to install electrical
precipitators, scrubbers, and other smoke control devices, it is possible in some
instances to pass the effluent from an industrial process through a hot flame (an
afterburner) to vaporize it and thus as with the automobile, the pollution
plume becomes invisible. The concentration of tiny particles is so high, however,
that agglomeration often occurs and the knowledgeable observer will detect
the plume downwind of the offending source. Under such conditions the use of
the afterburner is particularly bad since in addition to making the particles
much smaller than they would normally be, they then have a longer residence
time in the atmosphere because of their smaller size. Also, the afterburner will
generate nitrogen oxide, a poisonous gas which also serves as one of the catalysts
for particle growth involving unburned gasoline vapor.
Although some persons believe that unless pollution is curbed in the near
future we will run out of breathable air, I believe that other problems will
confront us before that happens. The human body is a highly resistant mecha-
nism to airborne particles. If this were not the case, I do not see how smokers
could live ! In the process of somking, the individual insults his lungs with a
concentration of at least ten million smoke particles per cubic centimeter. This
is a concentration that is 10 to 100 times greater than is encountered in a vary
badly polluted urban area like Los Angeles or New York City. While there is
increasing evidence that the smoker is, in fact, shortening his life by the act of
smoking, there are many contradictory facts about smoking which require more
understanding about this complex question.
In considering this problem I have called the cigarette a "synergistic reactor."
By this term I mean the following : when a cigarette is smoked, there is a very
hot zone at the site of the burning tobacco. When the smoker inhales, this burn-
ing zone increases in temperature as more air ventilates and intensifies the
burning of the tobacco. If the cigarette is smoked in air which contains pollution
particles, many of these particles (with a concentration of 10,000 to 100,000 per
cubic centimeter or more) are drawn through the burning zone and vaporized.
Thus, besides receiving the products of combustion of the tobacco and paper of
the cigarette, an additional load comprised of a wide variety of chemical sub-
stances is also taken into the lungs. Through vaporization these chemical sub-
stances are now in a highly reactable condition with the lungs virtually serving
as a test tube, the concentration of gaseous vapors being so high that many reac-
tions can take place and consequently a host of new chemicals may form. These
new precipitates being small are readily adsorbed, dissolved, or precipitated on
the moist surface of the lungs.
When one considers the nearly infinite variety of substances which float in the
air of the urban environment, is it any wonder that confused information is an
inherent part of the health records of smokers in an urban region ?
One of the disturbing aspects of the increase in air pollution over the past
decade is that it has apparently increased by nearly an order of magnitude in the
area upwind of our cities. This tenfold increase in particulates in areas which
previously were characterized as clean "country" air has been measured in
northern Arizona near the San Francisco Peaks, in northwestern Wyoming at
the Old Faithful area of Yellowstone National Park, and in the Adirondack
Mountains of northeastern New York.
When the country air becomes contaminated, then it can no longer dilute the
pollution sources to the degree which once was possible.
During the past 3 years we have measured the concentrations of particulates
in many parts of the contiguous United States (Schaefer, 1969). In eight trans-
continental flights which encompased most of the major cities of the countx-y and
the majority of the clean and polluted regions of the country in between, we have
been able to gain a very broad view of the degree to which polluted air covers
the country. These findings show the extent to which pollution sources spread
Ill
their pall over large areas of the continent and clearly shows the fallacy of the
"air shed" idea. Unlike water which is primarily controlled by gravity and thus
can be related to a particular drainage system often called a water shed, the air
and its load of particulates is not controlled by geographical barriers in most
instances as it moves rapidly from one region to another, controlled primarily by
pressure systems and the weather accompanying them. It is only during periods of
clear, quiet weather that local inversions intensify the pollution loads and thus
cause local concern as the concentration of particles builds downward from the
lid of the temperature inversion and the general public becomes aware of the
pollution haze and is sometimes frightened by it.
It is the measurable increase in the continental and global levels of particulates
which concerns me at the present time, since I believe certain components of the
polluted air may affect us in a more subtle way which may become a more serious
problem than the foul smell and eye-watering components we now associate with
polluted air.
For a quarter of a century I have been observing, studying, and measuring
the characteristics of atmospheric clouds. In the mid-1940's, supercooled clouds
were frequently observed in the northea.stern United States. During the period
1946-52, we conducted more than 1.50 flight studies of supercooled clouds in east-
ern New York, mainly over the Adirondack Mountains. During the past 5 years,
supercooled clouds have become relatively rare in the same region while low-
level ice crystal clouds (false cirrus) are of common occurrence.
This disapperance of supercooled clouds has been accompanied by the occur-
rence of a strange kind of precipitation which I have called "misty" rain and
"dusty" snow. The mist consists of water droplets of about 0.0.50-cm. diameter, so
small that they tend to drift down rather than fall.
The "dusty" snow has a slightly larger cross section, but the droplet from a
melted crystal has about the same size as the misty rain. Thus, it is likely that
some of the mist originated as snow but melted as it fell into warm air. When
this type of snow is falling, only a thin dust-like layer of snow accumulates on the
ground.
I believe the origin of both of these forms of precipitation are produced by
air pollution. A superabundance of both cloud nuclei and nuclei for ice crystal for-
mation are commonly observed in polluted air. The water vapor in the air col-
lects on such particles, but since there are so many of them (often 10 to 20 times
more cloud nuclei and hundreds of times more ice nuclei), the particles are so
numerous and so small that they inhibit the precipitation process by stabilizing
the clouds. Such stable clouds prevent sunshine from reaching the earth and thus
may effectively change some of the dynamics of weather systems. Whether such
effects will eventually cause changes in climate can only be determined by much
more intensive research.
The type of air i>ollution which produces a large increase in the concentration
of cloud nuclei could be almost any smoke from the burning of organic mate-
rials such as garbage, wood, paper, the efSuent from pulp mills, a majority of
chemical plants, and electric power plants emitting sulfur residues. On the other
hand, only a few sources of ice crystals have been identified. A very definite in-
crease in such nuclei may be found in the smoke from steel plants (Chagnon,
1969). By far the greatest and ubiquitous source is the automobile. The most ef-
fective source is the auto whose exhaust is quite invisible. I have recently found
that an auto equipped with the so-called anti-pollution devices is as effective
a source of potential ice nuclei as a car without such a control mechanism. If
anything, it api)ears to produce even more nuclei ! The material responsible for the
production of ice crystals is the submicroscopic residues produced by the burning
of gasoline. This mechanism and the results have been previously described in
some detail (Schaefer, 1966; Hogan, 1967; Schaefer, 1968a and b) and will not
be repeated here.
If our studies continue to show the increase in occurrence of overseeded clouds,
the persistence of clouds for longer periods of time due to their stabilization
in areas of polluted air, there is a strong possibility that such conditions will
lead to serious environmental and ecological problems resulting from this inad-
vertent modification of the weather and precipitation.
I hope I am wrong about these mechanisms and their consequences. However,
the more data I accumulate and the more observations I make increases the evi-
dence that some major effects in the atmosphere are occurring over hundreds
of thousands of square miles. Since the weather systems of our planet are inter-
112
connocted on a global scale, these effects may lead to an ever-increasing impact
on the climatic patterns of the world. "While such effects are not necessarily ir-
reversible, it would require major changes in the present trend of our scientific
and technological developments to reverse the present situation.
Only an educated and aroused public is likely to demand a change in this dete-
rioration of our environment. There are some hopeful signs that the public is
aware of some of these abuses and dangers. Many more efforts like the "Con-
versation in the Disciplines" in which we have participated are needed. I hope
this will hapi>en ; otherwise we will encounter a host of serious problems within
the next generation.
EEFEEENCES
Chagnon, S. A. 1969. La Porte weather anomaly fact or fiction? Bull. Amer.
Meteorol. Soc, 49 : 4.
Hogan, A. 1967. Ice nuclei from direct action of iodine vapor with vapors from
leaded gasoline. Science, 158 : 800.
Schaefer, V. J. 1966. Ice nuclei from automobile exhaust and iodine vapor. Scir
ence, 154 : 1555.
. 1968a. Ice nuclei from auto exhaust and organic vapors. J. Appl. Meteorol.,
7 : 113.
. 1968b. The effect of a trace of iodine on ice nucleation measurements. J.
Rech. Atmos., 3 : 181.
. 1969. The inadvertent modification of the atmosphere by air pollution.
Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc, 50 : 199.
Senator Muskie. I note as we close this morning session that you
have been the first Avitness in the years we have held testimony on this
subject to emphasize the importance of this particular area.
Dr. Schaefer. Thank you.
Senator Muskie. It is one of the reasons that we asked you to begin
this series of hearings. I tliink it has been very helpful. Thank you
very much, sir.
Dr. Schaefer. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Muskie. We will include statements received relevant to
the bills and amendments at this point in the record.
( Statements follow : )
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C., March 2, 1970.
Hon. Jennings Randolph,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman : Since submission of our draft bill, the "Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1970", on February 10, 1970, which has been referred to vour
Committee, it has been called to my attention that a provision in the bill "may
be given a construction which we had certainly not intended
The_ proposed section 112 of the Clean Air Act, relating to "Stationary Source
J^.mission Standards", was intended to authorize regulation of new and exist-
ing sources which would be extremely hazardous to health and of other new
sources which would "contribute substantially to endangerment of the public
health or welfare." Subsection (b) of this section correctly refers onlv to
rrgnations for these sources of emissions. Subsection (a), however, is' not
clearly limited to these sources and might be open to the construction that it
applies also to existing sources which are not extremely hazardous to health
This was certainly not our intention.
To obviate any such unintended interpretation, I would appreciate it if
prior to reporting the bill, subsection (a) of the proposed section 112 could lie
amended by changing the first sentence to read: "The Secretary shall from
time to time by regulation, giving appropriate consideration to 'technological
113
feasibility, establish standards with respect to (1) emissions, which are ex-
tremely hazardous to health, from any stationary sources, and (2) other emis-
sions, which contribute substantially to endangerment of the public health or
welfare, from any new stationary sources."
Sincerely,
Creed C. Black,
Assistant Secretary for Legislation.
Statement of the National Society of Professional Engineers on S. 3466
The 66,000 members of the National Society of Professional Engineers ap-
preciate the opportimity to present their views on S. 3466, a bill to amend the
Clean Air Act.
The National Society of Professional Engineers, a nonprofit organization
headquartered in Washington, D.C., consists of engineers who are engaged in
virtually every aspect and phase of engineering practice as well as educa-
tional and governmental employment. Each has qualified by virtue of academic
training, experience, and demonstrated fitness for a license to practice engineer-
ing under one or more of the various state registration and licensing laws.
Organized at chapter, state, and national levels, the Society is the authoritative
voice for these professionals.
Society members all across the country actively participate in programs in-
tended to correct, control, and prevent pollution of our air. These engineers not
only design pollution control equipment, direct its installation, and supervise its
operation, but they also serve on governmental pollution control boards and other
concerned agencies and groups, both formal and informal, at all levels of govern-
ment. Engineers are, because of their training, discipline, and involvement, most
conscious of the serious threat which air pollution poses to the public health,
safety, and welfare. Moreover, they are alert to the heavy obligation they share in
providing leadership in the nation's air pollution abatement efforts. They are, at
the same time aware of the need to insure that these efforts are based upon sound
engineering, economic, and governmental principles.
in recognition of their leadership role in this area, the membership of the Na-
tional Society of Professional Engineers, acting through its Board of Directors,
has continuously con.sidered how best to deal with air pollution problems in the
United States, and has arrived at a number of conclusions.
Engineers are convinced that the total responsibility for activities relating to
the prevention and control of air pollution involves all levels of government^
local, state, and Federal — and includes private industry and individual citizens.
Engineers are equally convinced that abatement of air pollution through regu-
latory action should be the primary responsibility of state and local govermnent,
utilizing, to the extent feasible, a regional approach.
In order to strengthen the national effort for prevention and control of air pol-
lution, engineers feel that the Federal government should take at least tlie fol-
lowing positive steps :
(a) Conduct and support research, development and demonstrations
through intramural programs, contracts and grants, in cooperation with
pulilie and private institutions.
(b) Encourage the development of effective state and local programs, and
provide financial assistance in furtherance thereof.
(c) Stimulate and financially support training and educational activities
to increase the quality and quantity of engineering and other es.sential man-
power resources, including technicians: sponsor conferences, seminars and
other methods to explore new developments in combating air pollution, and
disseminate information resulting from such discussions.
(d) Control air pollution resulting from Federal installations and direct
Federal activities.
(e) Control interstate air pollution through regulatory action, if. after
the responsible states have been allowed the prescribed period of time, ade-
quate abatement measures have not been taken.
(f) Include appropriate professional engineering representation on the
National Advisory Committee on Air Pollution.
Engineers believe in the principle that primary regulatory responsibility for
the prevention and control of instrastate air pollution should rest with the state
114
and local governments. We agree with the statement of this principle as set out in
Section 101(3) of the Air Quality Act of 1967 as follows: "The prevention and
control of air pollution and its sources is the primary responsibility of state and
local governments."
S. 3466, would, however, provide for substantial Federal control over states'
internal affairs, and appear to be in direct contradiction to this established
principle.
The Clean Air Act of 1967 provides for interstate air quality control regions.
Basically, this is a field in which the Federal Government should provide
guidance and support for cooperative efforts by contiguous states, and much
has already been done in establishing interstate regions by the National Air
Pollution Control Administration of HEW.
There appears to be a legitimate basis for concern over some of the proposed
interstate regions involving cities and associated air pollution sources which
are widely separated, raising a question about the basis for Federal interven-
tion. A reasonable application of the interstate control principle is understood,
but some of the interstate regions recently announced appear to be unnecessary
and deliberate attempts by the National Air Pollution Control Administration
to impose its authority where it is not needed.
Some analysts of S. 3466 see no need for a Federally-established air quality
standard for the entire country. They note that all states will have segments
of interstate air pollution control regions where Federally-approved air quality
standards must be adopted, and feel that those states not having general intra-
state standards can and will readily adopt them.
These same analysts note the National Air Pollution Control Administration's
record in having failed to set up its intended number of interstate air quality
control regions as scheduled, and wonder whether it is therefore reasonable to
assume that HEW can be expected to assume the larger task of setting up stand-
ards and control air pollution in all state of the United States.
S. 3466 genuinely presents the question of whether, under its provisions, state
and local air pollution control boards and staffs would not cease to have au-
thority except for "rubber stamping" Federal action, and would not, in sub-
stance, become enforcement agencies for the National Air Pollution Control
Administration.
Engineers believe that care should be exercised so that the real progress which
is being made under existing state and local control is not jeopardized through
federalization.
Areas in which there does exist an undisputed need for substantial Federal
activity do, however, exist. The conduct of research, development, and demon-
stration is one. Reliable research is very much needed to determine the effects
on health of various pollutants. The authorization and funding provided in the
Clean Air Act of 1967, for rsearch, we feel, should be continued.
Pollution resulting from internal combustion engines of motor vehicles is
another appropriate area for Federal action. This source contributes about
64 percent of all air pollutants on a national average annual basis — 80 percent in
Washington and 88 percent in Los Angeles. Federal governmental action affecting
the manufacturing process of internal combustion engines for motor vehicles,
aimed at reduction in this source of pollutant emissions, is a function that
cannot be successfully undertaken by the states and would therefore appear
properly within the province of the Federal sphere. Regulatory action necessary
for the continued maintenance of air pollution control devices on motor vehicles,
on the other hand, is properly a state function. We believe that this division of
responsibility in connection with motor vehicles is a sound one. and recommend
it be considered in connection with S. 3466.
Engineers sincerely believe in the need for adequate and reasonable control
of air pollution. But they also believe that there exists a real danger of unwise
proposals becoming law in the current clamor for air pollution control. The
possibility of a harmful over-reactiton through enactment of unnecessarily
rigid controls is ever present, and we urge the need for sound judgment at the
National level.
Statement of Michael Treshow, Professor of Biology, University of Utah
More and more, standards are being based on citizen pressure and emotion
rather than scientifically established threshold concentrations of effects : each
State is trying to outdo its neighbors in setting lower standards. Alarmists and
115
foresayers of doom are pressing for complete removal of pollutants, and rec-
ommended standards for almost every pollutant are approaching zero. While
a zero pollution level is a noteworthy goal, it rarely provides a realistic standard.
Some States (e.g. Oregon) have adopted a plan of developing desired air
quality goals to supplement the standards. Hopefully standards would be real-
istic and could be met using today's technology. Goals provide a long term ideal
to be sought and achieved as more effective technology becomes available in
the future.
Approaches to setting air quality standards, and the standards themselves,
are almost as numerous as the states developing them. Nearly every state is
developing different standards and basing them on different criteria. This in-
consistency in standards is confusing to control officials but is still more dis-
turbing to the general public who don't know what to believe. The confusion
is particularly critical near state boundaries where air regions overlap bound-
aries, and standards differ within the same air mass.
Such confusion can only be resolved by establishing federal standards to be
met by all the States. Resolving the inconsistencies among State Air Quality
standards is vital to an effective nationwide air quality program.
Senate bills S. 3229, S. 3466, and S. 3546. the Air Quality Improvement Act,
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, and the National Air Quality Stand-
ards Act of 1970 should adequately unify air quality standards across the
country and minimize the existing confusion.
Legislatively, the needs for air quality standards were most recently estab-
lished in the Clean Air Act of 1967. But placing the authority for establishing
standards with the States was a mistake.
In the first place, few states possess the expertise essential to developing
realistic standards even with help of the Federal Air Quality Criteria. Many
States are even so naive as not to know who to contact for help. Utah's Air
Conservation Committee, for instance, in developing sulfur dioxide standards,
called on only five "experts" — all from industry and all with questionable quali-
fications to discuss the subject.
One still more obvious weakness in State standards lies in the pressure large
industries may be capable of exerting, and the influence they can wield in set-
ting standards. The importance of major industry to a State's tax base cannot
be underestimated. No rational state government is likely to jeopardize this
base regardless of the hazards the pollutants from the industry might impose
on the environment. Concerned industry may cooperate to the extent of moral
obligation or economic feasibility, but is not likely to go much beyond this if
its competition across the state line is spared the expense of maintaining a
stringent control program.
Too often State air pollution control officials are too naive or too oblivious to
demand stringent controls on new facilities even if backed by adequate laws. A
current case in point is the power generating plants under construction near
Page, in northern Arizona. Proposed control facilities are inadequate, and over
700 tons of SO2 and 200 tons of fly ash will be deposited on the surrounding
desert biome each day. Stacks 700 to 800 feet high are planned which will simply
disperse the wastes over a wider area. The sensitivity of desert species to SO'
is not known, but the bulk of the emissions will drift over and into Glen Canyon
creating flrst an aesthetic insult to the thousands of boaters hoping to enjoy
the pristine majesty of this remote National Recreation area. Secondly, pollu-
tion of Lake Powell itself is inevitable. The seriousness of this to the stability
and productivity of the lake isn't known, but the sulfates will add measurably
to the already saline waters, and the increased acidity may have a serious im-
pact on the aquatic biota as demonstrated in smaller bodies of water subjected
to far less pollution.
Regrettably, Arizona is accepting these power plants without demanding
maximum control emissions. If S. 3466 were in effect, boaters, campers, fisher-
man, sightseers, and the public at large would not have to be concerned with the
impending desecration of the Lake Powell Recreation area-
Such areas are for the enjoyment of the entire nation, not just the citizens of
a small corner of one State. It is imperative that our natural areas be protected ;
it is the resi)onsibility of us all to see they are !
Power plants and other major sources of pollution are being constructed in
many parts of the country. Each contributes its share of wastes into regional air
sheds oblivious to State boundaries. Where the State is remiss in its obligations
by not demanding maximum emission control, excessive wastes are disi)ersed
1
116
into neighboring air sheds where they may violate the air quality standards of that
State.
Uniformity in standards, as can be attained only through federal standards,
is needed to uniformly protect the natural ecosystems of the country to say
nothing of the agricultural crops, recreation areas, parks, and home landscapes.
Such standards must not be set loosely at concentrations expedient to industry
but failing to provide adequate protection to the land. Nor must they be based
on the unqualified emotions of a few alarmists, and set so stringent that present
technology does not enable compliance. Such a situation either forces violating
industries to shut down, to be granted variances, or the law to be ignored — all
situations no one wants. Yet, such situations exist now due to inadequate
deliberation and consideration given prior to establishing air quality standards.
Finally, States and air quality regions are duplicating each others efforts.
Many lack the capability or competence to develop realistic standards. Federal
air quality standards, developed in accordance with recommendation of the most
knowledgeable experts in the country, must be provided. Standards for major
pollutants must be established rapidly but sagaciously. Only then can our health
and esthetics be adequately protected, and our natural and cultivated lands
receive the uniform protection needed for their preservation.
State of Maryland,
Office of the Secketart,
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
Baltimore, March 26, 1970.
In re S. 3466.
Hon. Edmund S. Muskie,
Chairman, i^uhcomniittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Committee on
PuMic Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Muskie: We have reviewed Senate Bill 3466, which proposes
various amendments to the Clean Air Act. After considerable thought, we have
developed some opinions which we hope will be useful to your committee in
making its determinations as to what action should be taken on the bill.
The bill calls for establishment by the U.S. Secretary of HEW of nationally
applicable standards of ambient air quality. The existing requirement for
publication of air quality criteria prior to setting air quality standards would be
deleted. This is considered to be undesirable for the following reasons :
1. Standards set at the National level would probably not call for air as clean
as would standards set by many (if not most) States under existing arrange-
ments because National industrial and commercial pressure groups could con-
centrate all of their influence on a very few Federal oflSeials while the capability
of the general public (which has been very influential in standard setting in
recent months) to influence decisions would be greatly weakened. Few citizen
groups could afford the cost of trips to hearings. True, a few States may pro-
pose air quality standards which do not call for adequately clean air. But
the.se could be up.graded by provisions for Federal review and approval and the
setting of adequate standards through a Federal mechanism, if a State fails to
adopt adequate standards.
2. Without published air quality criteria, carrying the weight of broad back-
ing from the scientific community, the ability to overcome the statements of
doubt offered by those who do not favor an aggressive clean air approach woiild
be seriously impaired. The public at large. State and local governments, and
others do not often have the resources to conduct comprehensive literature re-
views and thus, would be at a di.sadvantage when discussing standards with in-
dustrial and commercial representatives who do have the capability to search
the literature. Even Federal officials would be at a disadvantage if they had
not invested the time and effort needed to prepare a public criteria document.
True, the preparation of criteria takes time but it is time well spent.
3. If nationally applicable standards are set by the Federal government, it
may well bp the nnh/ standard. The chances are remote that any State could
overcome the opposition of those not favoring an aggressive clean air iwlicy to
a standard calling for better air quality than that prescribed in a National
standard. The contention would likely be that any National standard »?»•<?/ rep-
resont the lowest justifiable pollution levels since tlip basic Federal law has as
its imrpose " — to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources — "'
117
" — and to promote the public health and welfare." Yet, truly desirable standards
are unlikely at the National level, because of the situation described in No. 1
above.
4. Public backing at the State and local level for truly aggressive clean-up
programs would be weakened by National air quality standards. When the pub-
lic has been involved in and has had an evident and strong voice in setting com-
munity goals (air quality standards), the public commits itself to taking the
steps necessax-y to achieve the goals. Without this extensive, broad, and intimate
involvement in goal .setting, it may well be impossible to get needed public back-
ing for such necessary sweeping changes as elimination of small on-site incinera-
tors, controls on pre-1968 vehicles and mandatory heating plant maintenance,
which involve direct expenditures by a great many private citizens.
The bill proposes that the Secretary of HEW be empowered to promulgate
emis.sion regulations applicable to sources which contribute substantially to en-
dangerment of the public liealth or welfare." Certain .special provisions would
apply to regulations relating to emissions which are "extremely hazardous to
health." We would agree that because of the uniqueness of such '"extremely
hazardous sourc-es", the shortage of expertise in some State and local govern-
mental agencies and the necessity of being as sure as possible that there will
be no plants built which are extremely hazardous to health, regardless of other
considerations, that the Fedei'al government should set standards for emissions
which are "extremely hazardous to health." However, a list of typical emissions
should be given in the bill which would provide guidelines as to the kinds of
emissions intended to be regulated. (For example, beryllium, a.sbe.stos, cadmium,
arsenic, pathogenic aerosols, war gases.) There should be no problems in re-
quiring absolutely minimum possible emission of such materials on a National
basis because of the health hazard involved.
With regard to emission of other materials (those not extremely hazardous
to health), we believe that the establishment of standards should be left to
State agencies, with provision for Federal review and approval and for promul-
gation of standards by the Federal government for a jurisdiction when a State
agency fails to adopt adequate standards. Our reasoning is along the lines of the
concepts expressed in items number 1 and 3 above in regard to ambient air
quality standards. A further factor is the generally recognized suitability of
variations in emission regulations from one locality to another. It is our opinion
that with a system such as we prefer, emission standards would tend to gravitate
toward those representing "best possible control" whereas with National stand-
ards, they would tend more to gravitate toward some less restrictive. Nationally
acceptable and "reasonable" level, such as might be needed at a source located
in an isolated area. Our concept number 3 above would be especially valid. A
National emission standard which was more restrictive than that which made
sense for a plant in an isolated area would not seem likely.
Beyond these major considerations, some other observations and suggestions
concerning the bill as written are as follows:
1. Page 10 — lines 2 and .3 — The Federal agency should be required, to send the
proposed regulations to all air pollution control agencies in the Nation, even
though this is usually done on a voluntary basis.
2. Page 12 — lines 6 through 25 — There is no requirement that before the Sec-
retary approves a State's implementation plan that he mvst determine that
such plan will prevent inequitable contributions to pollution levels in a neighbor-
ing State or unduly contribute to excursions of pollution levels above the ambient
air quality standards of a neighboring State. This seems to us to be a key element
(interstate flow of pollution) in the Federal role and should he provided for.
3. Page 14 — line 7 — The Federal agency should be required to send the pro-
posed regulations to concerned air pollution control agencies, even though such
might be considered almost automatic.
4. Page 14 — line 2."> — The ninety day time allowance seems unduly short in view
of the rather substantial actions that might be needed. It would seem appropriate
to allow the Secretary to specify the time for taking action (but no less than
six months) so that he could vary the time to suit the circumstances.
5. Page 15 — lines 11 through 14 — We do not understand why the adversely
affected States should not be represented on the hearing board, if the "polluting"
States are. We suggest deleting this language from the bill.
6. Page 17 — line 4 — This condition ("can be prevented or substantially re-
duced") should be omitted. It might preclude the Secretary from the desirable
action of setting a standard, to go into effect in the future, for sources for which
control is not currently practical.
118
7. Page 18— lines 11 and 12 and lines 16 and 17— Provision should be made that
plans which are more restrictive than those promulgated by the Secretary will
be considered satisfactory. T'c.T^TTTnT.T
The bill does not propose to give authority and responsibility to LfeDHH-W
in two important fields which we believe it should. First, we believe that HEW
should be charged with promulgation of standards for emissions from aircraft
engaged in interstate commerce and that a mechanism for enforcement of such
standards by an appropriate Federal agency should be established. Secondly,
we believe that HEW should be given authority and responsibility for prescrib-
ing the characteristics of solvents in materials which are shipped in interstate
commerce. The materials involved are such items as paints, adhesives, printing
inks, etc. Pure solvents, used as such in degreasers, dry cleaning, etc. could be
regulated effectively by State and local agencies. The objective would be to
minimize use of photochemically more reactive solvents in formulating various
compounds. To have a variety of regulations in this field in the several States
would cause substantial problems in the producing industry and in national
organizations using solvent containing materials, such as the Federal govern-
ment.
We appreciate this opportunity to submit our views on this important bill.
If we can be of further service, please let us know.
Very truly yours,
Neil Solomon, M.D., Ph. D.,
Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene.
Office of the Secbetary,
Department of Heath and Mental Hygiene,
Baltimore, Md., March 27, 1910.
In re S. 3229.
Hon. Edmund S. Muskie,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Committee on
Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Muskie: We have reviewed Senate Bill 3229, which amends
the Clean Air Act. We would like to offer the following comments for considera-
tion by you and your subcommittee.
Section 104 would require a public hearing, after 30 days notice on proposed
implementation plans. While most states are already required, by State law,
to hold hearings on proposed regulations, there is rarely any such requirement
concerning a full implementation plan. The idea of involving the public in
development of implementation plans is a good one and we suport it.
Amendments to Section 202(a) of title II would give the Secretary power
to prescribe standards for vessels, aircraft and commercial vehicles and for
new noncommercial vehicles, vessels, commercial vehicles or aircraft
engines or new noncommercial vehicle engines. We believe this pro-
posal has merit and we support the general concept. However, implementa-
tion and enforcement of any such standards with regard to other than new items
would pose major operational problems for a Federal agency, except perhaps
for aircraft, because of the great numbers of items to be kept under control
and their mobility. Perhaps a workable approach would be for the Federal
government to publish recommended standards for non-new items for guidance
of the States and leave much of the enforcement to the States. Hopefully,
the States would incorporate the recommended standards in their own laws or
regulations and enforce them. Also accompanying the standards should be
testing procedures for field use by semi-skilled personnel and specifications for
any needed testing equipment. We believe that railroad locomotives should
be included in the items for which standards should be set. As we interpret the
definitions, they would be.
Provisions of the bill regarding registration of fuel additives are unchanged
from the existing law. We believe that the Federal government should be au-
thorized to regulate the characteristics and composition of fuels used in trans'-
portation and of additives to such fuels.
In regard to a program to limit the impact of solvents on air quality, we feel
that the proposed bill is not sufficiently direct and strong. The probiem is. as
you know, a matter of reducing emissions of organic solvents which are relatively
more active in atmospheric photochemical processes. This can be done by use
of emission control devices or by substitution of less reactive solvents for more
119
reactive solvents. The uses of solvent may be divided into two general classes:
(1) Use of solvents by themselves in such operations as decreasing or dry clean-
ing. Often only a single solvent is used in a given application; and (2) Use of
solvents as part of a mixture of materials as in paints, adhesives and print-
ing inks. State agencies can reasonably be expected to establish needed regula-
tory programs in the first instance but the Federal government is in a much
better position to regulate in regard to the second instance. States can also
readily operate programs to achieve control of emissions by application of
emission control devices such as afterburners and absorbers. Therefore, we
would favor legislation which would empower the Federal government to pres-
cribe standards for the kinds of solvents incorporated into such materials as
paints, adhesives, and printing inks.
We appreciate this opportunity to offer our views on this important legisla-
tion. If we can provide further information, please let us know.
Very truly yours,
Neil Solomox, M.D., Ph. D.,
Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene.
State of Maryland,
Office of the Secketaby,
Department of Hbialth and Mental Hygiene,
Baltimore, March 21, 1910.
In re : S. 3546.
Hon. Edmund S. Muskie,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Committee on
Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Qf.ar Senator Muskie : We have reviewed Senate Bill 3546 which would
amend the Clean Air Act. We would like to offer some comments for consideration
by you and your subcommittee.
Sections 2 and 3 of the bill would accelerate the process of establishing air
quality control regions. We endorse this objective. However, to clarify the matter
of whether the Secretary of HEW or a State is to be responsible for designating
a particular region, it is suggested that specific dates be added into the two
sections. It could be specified that the Federal government shall designate appro-
priate regions on or before (say) January 1, 1971 and that after such date, the
States should define regions to cover all parts of their respective States not then
included in Federally designated regions. On July 1, 1971, the Federal government
would again become active and designate the remaining regions not designated
by the States or by previous Federal action. (As you may know, the State of
Maryland has already divided the entire State into definite air quality control
areas.)
The proposed amendment of paragraph (1) of section 108(c) is an improve-
ment over the existing law and we concur with it, even though the shortened
time schedule will put severe pressure on our newly developing staff of relatively
inexperienced people. We suggest however that the words "and plan" be inserted
after "standards" in (B) and after the last word "standards" in (G). We also
suggest that an additional criteria be set forth for use by the Secretary in deter-
mining the adequacy of any standards and plans. It would relate to contributions
to pollution levels in a neighboring State. No standards and no plans of a State
should be considered adequate if they would allow an inappropriate increase
of pollution levels in another State.
Section 3(b) of the bill is diflScult to comprehend in several places. The
difliculty seems to be associated with an inconsistent use of the terms "air
quality standards", "implementation plans" and "emission requirements." The
concepts and phraseology should be straightened out and be made consistent
throughout the proposed new sections 2 through 11 of section 108(c).
In proposed section 108(c) (2) (C), an additional item should be added for use
by the Secretary in determining whether State standards are adequate. It
should require that the standards of one State must be such that air quality
in a neighboring State will not be inappropriately degraded.
The proposed section 108(c)(3) (last sentence) forbids revised standards
which would allow higher pollution levels than previous standards. While this
has some merit, it does not seem to allow for proper consideration of recently
developed facts nor for reasonable allowances associated with the changing
nature of a community or changes in the purposes and goals of its citizens. It is
suggested that the last sentence be deleted.
120
The Federal government appears to be authorized to initiate abatement ac-
tions in connection with violations without any prior consultation with the
State concerned, by the language of proposed section 108(c)(7). This could
generate a lot of work for Federal authorities and could well lead to friction
between Federal and State authorities and confused situations. We would sug-
gest that when the Federal government learns of a violation of standards that
it first advise the State thereof and specify a time for the State to take action
to bring about abatemen action. If the State then failed to act, direct Federal
enforcement action could appropriately ensue.
In this same section 108(c) (7) , we feel that allowing not more than 72 hours to
abate an emission regulation violation be unrealisitcally short in most eases. It
is suggested that the time allowed to abate such violations be left to the descretion
of the Secretiiry. It might be appropriate to require a public hearing if the con-
templated time allowance were more than a given period, perhaps one year.
We do not understand the reasoning for requiring that a copy of a petition
be sent to the State water pollution control agency, as specified in section 108
(e) (9). Was it intended that this be sent to the State air pollution control agency?
Violators who have been issued final orders to abate may be required to
provide data on their emissions, under provisions of section 108(c) (11). This
is a u.seful requirement but it should be broadened to authorize the Secretary
to require submission of such data at any time the Secretary has just cause
for believing that a violation is occurring.
The new section proposed for addition to section 108 (shown as (i) but (1)
is probably correct) would authorize the Secretary to issue regulations to
insure that new installations are provided with good emission control. While
this is a laudable idea, it would appear that the cost of administering such
a program would be very large and that effectiveness would be very difficult to
achieve. It seems to us that this is a function better left in the hands of State
and local governments.
Similarly, the concept embodied in section 5 of the bill is attractive but the
problems and cost of administration of such a program would appear to be so
formidable as to make it unwise to attempt it.
We hope that these observations and suggestions will be helpful to you and
your committee.
Very truly yours,
Neil Solomon, M.D., Ph.D.,
Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene.
Karl E. Wichert.
Des Moines, Wash., March 21, 1970.
Re Air contamination by exhaust fumes — Report in Seattle Times March 16 about
activity of the subcommittee on air pollution.
Senator Edmund S. Muskie,
Old Senate Building, Washington.
Dear Sir: May I be permitted to submit some technical remarks to the sug-
gestion by Mrs. Ruth Weiner to limit the horsepower range of cars.
(A) Limitation of Horsepoxcer. — Although newspaper reports let often missing
some vital details, the cited report said that it was suggested to limit the engine
power to 200 hp. This is misleading, because :
1) It is impossible, to drive a tank or a tractor with the same limited nmoimt
of i)ower as a passenger car.
2) It should read .... passenger cars to be limited to 50 hp.
So far. i.e. in the past, the industry had settled for mainly three standard
engine sizes : 120 hp, 170 hp 220 hp. These engines are applied to a very wide
range of vehicles from passenger cars to trucks.
Concentrating on passenger cars, it is shown in the Addendum (1) that only
50 hp are utilized when driving under normal conditions. The rest of the in.stalled
power is wasted weight. Everybody can observe that a Volkswagen or a Volvo
or any foreign car in that class performs as well as a heavier car. If a Volks-
w^agen-engine would be installed in a Plymouth, Ford or etc., these cars would
perform as wel for normal driving conditions : the difference would be in some
additional gear shifting. The extra gear in the transmission costs less than the
gain in price by using the smaller engine. Furthermore, especially for use by non-
professional drivers, hydrostatic transmissions are on the market with efficiencies
of more than 90%, which provide a smooth elegant stepless power conversion
without any gear, not even for reverse.
121
If designed to standard practive, best engine efficiency is obtained at nominal
rating power. At part load, such as 20%, the engine efficiency is "louzy". indicat-
ing a poor combustion. This means that an over.sized engine has a poor burning
rate all the time and therefore contributes maximum amounts of air contamina-
tion, while a "right-sized" engine (50 hp for passenger cars) oi^erates with a
high efficiency, i.e. good burning rate, nio.«tly all the time when equipped with
adequate "gearing" in an attempt to run the engine clo.se to optimum speed. — The
word "gearing" includes hydrostatic and hydrodynamic transmissions.
Therefore, an engine with 50 hp or less produces little air contamination.
(B) Air Contamination. — (falsely called "air pollution") A clear definition
of air contamination is mandatory.
Tolerable are all combustion products of natural characteristics, i.e. as can
be found present in air under normal environmental conditions :
Oxygen — O and O2
Nitrogen — N and N2
Water— H2O
Carbondioxyd — CO2 and combinations thereof
(In gaseous or solid form (the latter can lead to ice fog in arctic regions).)
Xot tolerable are all unsaturated combustion products, because poisonous, and
irritating fumes are produced by evaporation and/or partial combustion :
Carbonmonoxyd CO
Unsaturated Water
Oil fumes which can recondensate
Fumes of additives, such as sulphur, metals (lead), etc.
The definition demands a thorough publication of nontolerable products, their
concentration in air samples and their probable sources. This information is
already available, but not broadly published.
The most common energy production is by HEAT.
The most common fuel is OIL.
The oil industry will be furious if .somebody would advocate the idea to
abandon oil from the market or even to limit its use. Facing facts, oil in its vari-
ous forms is and will remain for long time to come the major fuel.
The exact chemical combination of each fuel on the market must be honestly
published, which information is already available in various places, but most
likely locked in .safes. — Unlock it. —
Chemical Engineering, no doubt, will have no difficulties to determine :
(a) what minimum burning temperature must be achieve to avoid un-
saturated combu.^tion products and what maximum temperature can be
tolerated to avoid dissociation.
(b) what minimum oxygen supply through air is necessary.
(c) what additives to the fuel are required to provide chemical reaction
with fuel ingredients of non-hydrocarbon character to avoid irritant fumes.
(d) ban certain fuels from the market due to their present chemical
characteri-stics until such time when they are improved by proper proc-
essing.
This outlines a program, simple to comply with, regarding the present knowl-
edge and capability of our chemical industry. With these informations avail-
able, the power industry will have no difficulties to create engines capable of
producing exhaust gases at low level contamination.
(C) Suitable Approach in Engine Design. — The attached addendum (2) pres-
ents a brief description of an engine having features which make it easily
adaptable to the different requirements outlined above.
Some additional remarks came into mind after finishing this letter :
Police cars shall remain equipped with 200 hp or more.
Other persons wishing to drive a car equipped with more than 50 hp shall
obtain a special license and pay for it.
The use of engines of foreign origin, as suggested in the addendum (1),
is assumed for preliminary test purpose only.
Road Test — Performance Check — Rambler GGO
To obtain an approximate idea of fuel consumption and performance a check
was made on a Rambler Classic 660 — V8 with a rated power of more than 220 hp.
Checkpoints : Des Moines, Wash, to downtown Seattle — round trip.
122
Distance : .jO miles.
Time : 1 hour, using Interstate (5).
1.5 hours, using normal roads, i.e. Highway (99) or 1st Ave.
Fuel consumption : 3 gallons ; practically the same for both roads.
Performance: 50/3 = 16.6=appr. 11 miles I gallon.
The si>eeific fuel consumption, referred to jwwer, is to be expected more than
0.2 kg/hp.h=:0.44 Ib/hp. h.
The specific gravity of gasoline amounts to 0.8 or the specific weight of 7.5
lb/gallon, which varies widely within the different brands, depending on the
combination of ingredients and how much useless air is dissolved in the fuel.
Hence sfc=0.05S7 gallon/hp.h.
Based on these favorable figures, the consumption of 3 gallons/h indicates an
average power utilization of 3/0.0587=51 hp.h. ( HP=51 hp. )
Two factors will change this figure in one way or the other :
(a) Driving conditions on normal roads require many stops at traffic lights
etc., where the engine runs at idle and u.ses unnecessary fuel and even more
during the following acceleration.
However the one-hour figure was taken from checks along Interstate (5) with
no interruptions by trafiic lights. Using the normal-road test with 1.5 hours,
the average power consumption is obtained to : HP=51/1.5=3/0.05S7.1.5=34 hp
which, again, is a mean value (0 to max) between stops including idle time.
Assuming % of the time to be idle, the figure changes back to 51 hp maximum.
(b) The initially assumed sfc of 0.44 Ib/hp.h is valid only for high eflicient
engines, such as Diesel, and only at rated load. At part load the figure of sfc=0.66
Ib/hp.h is much more likely, hence a power output of 34 hp maximum is certainly
the more accurate amount, which would also confirm the mileages of small foreign
cars, whicli claim 22 to 25 miles/gallon.
To avoid misinterpretation, ithe objective is to have a normal American standard
middle class car (Plymouth, Mercury, Rambler, etc.) equipped with an engine
of foreign origin for test purpose.
The writer would be glad to undertake the assembly of such vehicle and test it,
if funds were available.
Patent Application Group 342, Serial 777642
1. Brief Description.
2. Claims.
3. Drawings are not attached, due to lack of copying machine.
References Application, Rotary Internal Combustion Engine — Filing Date,
Nov. 21, 1968, Group 342 Serial 777642
It is believed that this engine will be of interest to you. The principle of the
engine is a combination of known reciprocating machines and turbine effect, but
has no alternating moving parts; the working parts are strictly rotating around
their axis. The bearings have to carry only the load of the rotor weight and
therefore these bearings can be simple ball bearings, the lubrication of which
will be "turbine oil," which gives an easy start even at extreme cold conditions
(Arctic).
Furthermore the mean gas temperature, the main components are exposed to,
are at such level that cooling, especially water cooling, is not required. This
becomes even more obvious if the engine is used as a constant speed drive whereby
the power output is controlled by varying the combustion temperature rather than
throttling the breathing air for part load. For car applicaition it w^ould match
ideally with a hydraulic transmission at variable filling or with a hydro-static
transmission at variable plate angles.
The engine can i»e easily adapted to the various fuel burning rates, i.e. ordinary
gasoline, Diesel oil and/or bottled gas, such as to comply with State's require-
ments for prevention of air contamination.
The ignition does not require a timing device inasmuch either a spark plug is
used in combination with high frequency ignition system, or a glow plug is used
for starting purpose in combination with grooves in the end walls firing zone,
to provide crossfiring from a burning cylinder into the following w^hich jusit
entered the combusion sector.
The electric power requirement during start, etc., is so little that a battery of
8 Ah capacity would be fully suflicient instead of a conventional 80 Ah battery.
The auxiliary power drive such as an exhaust gas turbine puts out excessive
123
power if built of minimvim practical size (not being itoo small for manufacturing),
that an all electric system becomes most obvious with all the advantages of con-
venient location and simplicity of controls.
The main advantages are "constant volume" combustion without moving valves,
the rotor containing the combustion chambers acts at the same time as a turbine,
the expansion is not limited as in reciprocating machines, a mechanical com-
pression is not required — the compression being strictly a thermal one. All forces
are completely balanced.
Since there is no mechanical compression and therefore, as in reciprocating
machines, a built-in limited expansion ratio, the full expansion head to practical
atmospheric pressure is available for conversion into shaft horsepower, which
however depends substantially on the form of the expansion nozzles, which there-
fore become a very important part of the engine and will require some develop-
ment work.
The fuel consumption can be expected to be: sfc=.2 kg/hp h=.44 Ib/hp h.
The applications of the engine are for all kinds of cars, marine vehicles and
light propeller-driven airplanes.
Setting up a small special division, the first engine would be within 15 months
or less, with relatively simple test facilities involved.
What I Claim:
1. An internal combustion engine with constant volume combustion and no
mechanical compression, said engine producing high pressure gases by thermal
compression only, said pressurized gases producing work by fully expanding
through nozzles without restriction by mechanically built in expansion ratios,
said nozzles comprising a convergent and a divergent portion, the combination
of size and number thereof being such that maximum expansion of the gases is
achieved by means of supercritical velocities therein. Said engine comprising in
combination an outer member, an inner rotating member disposed within said
outer member and adapted to rotate relative thereto : at least one bore arranged
within said inner member coaxially thereto, a plurality of apertures communi-
cating between said bore and the peripheral surface of said inner member, means
to admit a combustible mixture to said bore means to ignite said mixture within
said bore whereby high pressure gases are produced, said gases being exhausted
from said bore through said nozzles in a tangential fashion thereby imparting
a reactionary force to said inner member relative to said outer member.
2. The combination as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the axial surfaces of said
outer member adjacent to the inner member are provided with sealing surfaces.
Senator Muskie. We will recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
(Wliereupon, at 11 :4:0 a.m., the subcommittee recesed, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 17, 1970.)
43-166 — 70--pt. 1-
AIR POLLUTION— 1970
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1970
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution
of the commit'i-ee on public works,
Washington^ D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200,
New Senate Office Building, Hon. Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of
the subconmiittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Randolph, Muskie, Spong, Eagleton, Boggs,
Cooper, and Dole.
Also present : Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director ; Bailey
Guard, assistant chief clerk, minority; Thomas C. Jorlmg, minority
counsel ; Leon G. Billings and Richard D. Grundy, professional staff
members.
Senator Muskie. The committee will be in order. This series of hear-
ings began yesterday. Obviously this testimony this morning is im-
portant opening testimony in the real sense. I opened the hearings
yesterday with a statement. Senator Randolph was not here yesterday
to make a statement.
Senator Randolph ?
HON. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
WEST VIRGINIA, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
WORKS, U.S. SENATE
Senator Randolph. My statement will be relatively brief. I regret
that it was impossible for me to join you yesterday for the beginnmg
of these hearings on the status of our effort. It must be a vei-y strong
effort if our countiy is to reduce the level of air pollution.
We were gratified by the productive nature of our hearings of the
past 3 weeks when the subcommittee was presented with a significant
amomit of information on the problems of solid waste disposal, plus
the new and imaginative technology being developed to cope with them.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that these hearings on air x^ollution will
be equally informative and challenging.
As you know, the Air Quality Act of 1967 was a very significant
milestone in the struggle — and it has been a struggle — to progress
toward cleaner air.
It was a good basic law that made available to the various levels of
government the machinery to move against air pollution.
Since that law was enacted, it has become obvious that additional
legislation is needed; the consideration of new or strengthened air
pollution law is our concern now.
(125)
126
^Iv. Chairman, I am not a carping critic, but I do want to say that-
I am disappointed to note tlie hesitant manner in which the Air Qual-
ity Act of 1907 has been implemented. The administration has moved
neither far enough nor fast enough in taking the steps toward estab-
lisliing controls over air pollution.
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare origmally
estimated that it would have designated 57 air quality control re-
gions by April of this year. Tliat deadline was later postponed to
December of 1970.
At this time, however, fewer than half the desigriations — 25 on
January 1, 1 believe — have been made.
I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, for me to state, as chairman
of the Public Works Committee, that there seems to have been too
little urgency in publishing the criteria and technology available for
achieving the objectives of the 1967 act.
Since these are to be the foundations on which the standards for
control of individual pollutants are set and accomplished, the air pol-
lution control program is in serious danger of being shortchanged.
Prior to yesterday, we had knowledge of criteria published for only
two pollutants. Then, wdien the hearings opened yesterday, we re-
ceived criteria on three more pollutants and information on four con-
trol technologies.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. FINCH, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, PRESENTED BY JOHN
VENEMAN, UNDER SECRETARY, HEW, ACCOMPANIED BY C. C.
JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERV-
ICE; DR. JOHN MIDDLETON, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH SERVICE; DR. ALEXANDER COHEN, CHIEF, NATIONAL
NOISE STUDY, BUREAU OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH;
AND SIDNEY SAPERSTEIN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
Senator Randolph. Mr. Under Secretary, the standards study under
the national emission program was due on November 21, 1969.
Mr. Veneman. That is correct.
Senator Eandolph. These came to us, for all purposes, only yester-
day, and also the printed report on the cost of the clean air program
that was forwarded to us. Then the third annual report on pollution
control came at the same time. These were really due in January of
1970.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have 1,800 pages of detailed reading matter
delivered to us at approimately the same time — much of it long overdue.
It is our proper role to express concern that progress has been made
so slowly. Mr. Chairman, I believe you will agree with me that the
criteria should already be determined for at least eight or 10 other
dangerous substances that are released regularly and in large quantities
into the air.
Our hearings will focus attention on these deficiencies and the imple-
mentation of the Air Quality Act, not only of 1967. But we will look
forward, too, and prepare for the challenging responsibility that are
with us on a continuing basis.
127
It is imperative tliat the administration and the Bureau of the
Budget act immediately to provide tlie funds and the manpower, to
accelerate the preparation and publishing of criteria and the designa-
tion of air quality control regions.
You and your associates, Mr. Secretary, have responsibility to help
us as a subcommittee and a committee to act affirnuitively and thor-
oughly, and as quickly as possible.
So, Mr. Chairman, under your able leadership, I am sure the sub-
committee will give serious consideration to ways and means to assure
more expeditious action, I think, in a very critical area of our life.
Senator Muskie. Thank 3-ou, Senator Eandolph.
Senator Boggs ?
Senator Boggs. I am sorry for being late, Mr. Chairman. I was at-
tending a meeting on another matter in which I am vitally interested.
ISIr. "Chairman, I want to join you in welcoming Secretary Vene-
man and Commissioner Middleton to this important hearing. I know
that each member of the subcommittee looks forward to the very help-
ful testimony you will give.
The Clean Air Act, under the leadership of Secretary Finch and
Commissioner Middleton, has proved to be an excellent foundation
for the efforts to improve air quality in America. For exam])le. Secre-
tary Finch just a couple of weeks ago approved the air quality stand-
ards for my State of Delaware, an important step in the efforts in
Delaware to enhance the environment.
The legislation we are considering today will augment the efforts
to improve air quality by setting emission standards in certain cases
and by accelerating the enforcement procedures. But we cannot expect
that such innovations will bring us 1871 air by 1971. We are involved
in a struggle that has consumed 7 years since the Clean Air Act was
adopted. It is a struggle that will require many more years, yet a
struggle that we must pursue relentlessly.
Mr. Under Secretary, we value your leadership in this struggle, and
we will value your testimony and your analysis of the pending legisla-
tion.
Today is the day for the wearing of the green. Let that green
stand for the green fields and green forests that will flourish in an
environment less burdened with air pollution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Muskie. Thank you. Senator Boggs. Senator Cooper?
Senator Cooper. Mr. Chairman, I think our committee can take
some satisfaction, perhaps a great deal of satisfaction in these proceed-
ings. Several years ago, under the leadership of the chairman of the
subcommittee — and I may say the ranking member of the minority
on this committee. Senator Boggs — that legislation was initiated and
passed dealing with several aspects of the environmental qualit}' , water,
air, and now^ solid waste. I think this has contributed a great deal to
the emphasis that is now being manifested throughout the country on
the environment.
But we know that the solutions are not all at hand, and I am sure in
these hearings great progress will be made.
I am very glad that the Under Secretary is here to represent Secre-
tary Finch to testify on air pollution legislation. I think the President
and Secretary Finch are to be commended for the commitment which
128
has been made to work unceasingly for the solution of environmental
quality. An outstanding manifestation of this commitment is the ad-
ministration's bill S. 3466 which has been introduced. It is a proposal,
in my view, based on the experience of the Clean Air Act which was
enacted by this committee.
I know the President's recommendation will receive thorough con-
sideration from the committee resulting in fair and just legislation.
This committee has been cited, and I think notably, for being a
nonpartisan committee. Our problems deal with the country's problems,
and I think all of us will try to be nonpartisan, and I think we hope to
continue to be so.
I think constructive criticism is well taken and necessary. It could
be that we have the problems in the States and regions. I know that
new ideas and concepts are presented by the administration. It may be
a fact that your proposal of a national standard rather than regional
standards may have something to do with tliis. But I arn confident
we will go forward, and I am sure this committee will assist in every
way we can, as we have worked together in the past.
Senator IIandolpii. Mr. Chairman, may I add a comment?
Senator Muskie. Certainly.
Senator Eandolph. I would like to comment further upon the state-
ment by Senator Cooper, the ranking minority member of the full
committee. I was very careful to say that I have not desired to be a
carping critic. I have not assumed that role. I will call attention, how-
ever, to the matters that are important.
I will ask, Mr. Chairman, to place in the record my recent Senate
remarks in the Congressional Record of February 17, 1970, in which
I stated that we would proceed in the bipartisan manner that we have
in the past.
(The remarks referred to follow :)
Environmental Quality Measures Cosponsored by Senator Randolph in
Interest of Bipartisanship
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, another period of intense activity in the Con-
gress on legislation to improve the quality of the environment impends. As always,
it is one of our most challenging areas of legislative endeavor. The need for
quality improvement — vast improvement — is as vital as any requirement con-
fronting society. The environment in which we live has become 80 complex that
the really effective solutions to problems created by man's befoulment of it are
elusive because the environmental problems generally are complex, too.
Our proven leader in this body in the pollution control effort. Senator Edmund
S. Muskie, of Maine is developing again to develop a broad agenda for the Public
Works Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, which he chairs so ably and
vigorously. As chairman of the full Public Works Committee, I am coordinating
the committee's agenda with that of the subcommittee headed by the Senator
from Maine, who is preparing to introduce broad legislative measures to expand
and improve upon the antipollution laws heretofore enacted under his leadership.
President Nixon indicated clearly in his state of the Union message the em-
phasis his administration places on the need to upgrade the quality of the en-
vironment. And his special message to the Congress on the environment, delivered
February 10, spells out the administration's understanding of the problems
and pronounces the points and methods of attack on these problems. The Nixon
administration's versions of legislative remedies have been prepared and made
available to us and will be introduced formally as legislative measures by the
minority leader, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Scott), who has
invited cosponsorship.
In a letter today to the minority leader, I wrote that Senator Muskie invited
me to cosponsor the bills he will introduce, and I have accepted. And I asked
129
Senator Scott to list me as a cosponsor of the legislation he will introduce to
implement the President's proposals.
As I noted earlier in a communication to Senator Muskie, I also informed
Senator Scott that I agree in principle on the objectives espoused by the Senator
from Maine and those espoused in the Nixon administration measures. I expressed
the belief that we will be able to negotiate solutions where we may have some
differences on methods of reaching the environmental goals to which I ascribe
the same high priority expressed by the President, by Majority Leader Mansfield,
by minority Leader Scott, and by Senator Muskie.
In communicating my desire to cosponsor the Muskie bills and the Nixon
administration proposals. I called attention to the fact that in our Public Works
Committee and in our Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, legislation to
improve the quality of the environment never has been considered on partisan
political lines. I reiterate the belief that the same conditions will prevail in this
session of the (Congress and that vital questions relating to upgrading the quality
of our environment will have bipartisan consideration.
It is in this tradition that I am gratified to cosponsor in principle and purpose
the bills of the Nixon administration and those which Senator Muskie will in-
troduce, based on his lengthy and comprehensive experience with environmental
legislation.
Senator Eandolph. For that reason, I am a cosponsor, as Senator
Cooper knows, of all the administration legislation that has been sent
to the Congress. My name is also listed, Mr. Chairman, to show
my cosponsorship of all the legislation that you have introduced re-
lating to the environment. I support these legislative proposals in
principle on a bipartisan basis.
I will not belabor this point because I feel it is not necessary. We
will continue as we have to move forward constructively. But where
there are deficiencies, where there are problems, we would want to ad-
dress attention to them. Also, we would want you gentlemen to be
equally conscious of your responsibility to speak to the members of
the subcommittee and the full committee concerning actions which
you believe we should take with dispatch.
So I feel that we meet in an atmosphere of clarification, somewhat,
but, more importantly, with a purpose to move forward in this job.
Senator ]\Iuskie. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Spong ?
Senator Spoxg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no extended
statement at this time. I would like to observe that we meet here today
with an administration bill that represents in some aspects a new ap-
proach to a problem that we have had under study for some time.
I would join with Senator Randolph in expressing the hope all of us
will recognize a sense of urgency about this legislation. I hope this
subcommittee, between the approaches advocated by some of us on
the one hand and the administration on the other, will develop legisla-
tion which will be effective and be presented in such a way that those
charged with administering it will seize upon it with the urgency
that we view is necessary.
Senator Muskie. Thank you very much.
Senator Eagleton ?
Senator Eagleton. No comment at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Muskie. I would just like to make, as chairman of the sub-
committee, one or two observations. First of all, I think we are all
conscious that for the first time in 7 or 8 years there is a tremendous
reservoir of public concern and support for effective action in this
field.
130
I think our primary challenge is to use that resource in developing
the soundest and most effective legislation of which we are capable.
I think the first thing we ought to do, in light of that challenge, is
to review critically, not only the administration of public policy in
the years that we have been writing it, but the statutes we have written,
as well. -
This legislation, in many instances, incorporated compromises that
were the product of a kind of public support we might like to have
to write public law at that time.
So we have an opportunity— and we might regard it as such — to re-
view everything that has been done up to today, to review all of the
concepts that underlie our current legislation and current program^s, to
subject them to critical review and to examine every new^ idea ad-
vanced — national emission standards, regional approaches — every new
idea incorporated in the administration's bill, in the legislation that we
have introduced. We need to produce the best policy of which we are
capable at tliis time.
I guess that criticism across party lines is unavoidable, especially
in an election year. I will be tempted, as well as everybody else, and
if I am, I will get my reactions in time. That is all right ; that is part
of the game. But let us not forget the primary challenge, which is to
sort out all of the ideas we have in front of use, and all others that
will be presented to us by witnesses, and put together some good
legislation. I think that is our challenge.
If we criticize, even though there may be overtones of partisanship,
what we are really trying to do is to get through the hard-core stuff
that we need to write the legislation.
"With that as a preliminary, may I welcome as our first witness
the Under Secretary of HEW, John Veneman. May I express my
regret that Secretary Finch could not be here. I understand fully
why he camiot. He is suffering from a temporary indisposition ; and I
understand fully, having had a touch of the same in the past myself.
But it is our pleasure to welcome the Under Secretary. It is a pleasure
to welcome Dr. Middleton, who is a long-time friend and advisor in
this field, and your other colleagues. Please identify them for the rec-
ord, Mr. Under Secretary.
Mr. Veneman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
at the outset that I do appreciate the tone that has been expressed by
the members of the subcommittee, for I believe that not only the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but this administra-
tion, justly stand committed to solving what is a key problem in this
country today, as do the members of this committee, and I am confi-
dent that by working together, that the public attitude and public
mood are such that we can obtain some good results at the present
time.
Let me also, on behalf of the Secretary, express his regrets for
bein;^ unable to attend because of illness. We would hojje that if the
hearings do proceed at some future time that he may be able to appear
before the committee hunself.
Senator Muskie. May I say at this point that you have the new
criteria and the suggestions for control technology. "Wliatever the
reason for the timing, we haven't had time to examine these. At
some point, we may want to call some of the witnesses back so we
131
may get into questions suggested by this material. It is voluminous,
and it would be premature to get into it this morning.
]Mr. Veneman. I think we can work that out. I think, Mr. Chair-
man, that many of the technical questions that pertain to the criteria
can be answered by Mr. Johnson and Dr. Middleton to the degree that
you would like.
But, as I have indicated, I am sure the Secretary would be pleased
to come and cover the policies you would like to discuss.
Let me introduce the rest of those at the table. Mr. C. C. Jolmson,
who is the Administrator of the Environmental Health Sei-vice, to my
left. To my far right, Mr. Sidney Saperstein, Assistant General Coun-
sel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. To my
immediate right is Dr. John Middleton, Commissioner of the National
Air Pollution Control Administration of the Emaronmental Health
Service.
Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a detailed statement on behalf of
Secretary Finch. "What I would like to do is cover some of the high-
liglits and comment upon S. 3466, the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1970, and also convey some of our remarks regarding S. 3229 and
S. 3546, plus make some references to title II of S. 3229, which ad-
dresses itself to the problem of noise pollution.
STATEMEITT OP HON. EOBEET H. FINCH
iMr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in his message
to tlie Congress en February 10, 1970, the President described the air
as our most vital resource and air pollution as our most serious environ-
mental problem. To strengthen and to speed up the Nation's attack on
this problem, he proposed a series of amendments to the Clean Air
Act. These proposals are before you today in S. 3166. I welcome the
opportunity to testify in support of the bill, and to comment on
S. 3229 and S. 3516 which you also have under consideration.
Enactment of the administration bill would enable the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare to extend and accelerate its na-
tional i>rograni of air pollution research and control. S. 3466 does not
represent a radical departure from the present Clean Air Act; rather,
it preserves the best features of that act and provides for change
where change seems necessary. There would be a high degree of con-
tinuity with ongoing efforts.
The administration bill is unique, however, in its reflection of the
fact that the Nation's air resource is indivisible. Air, polluted or
not, crosses the maginary lines that divide State from State. Air
quality, therefore, is not a matter of purely local or regional concern
but rather of national concern. That national concern must be reflected
in the way air quality standards are established — and it is so reflected
in the administration bill.
Under the proposed bill, two other matters of national concern also
would be the focus of national effort: (a) new stationary sources of
air pollution that would contribute substantially to endangering public
health or welfare; and (b) any stationary source emitting pollutants
that are extremely hazardous to health. National leadership in deal-
ing with such sources is essential, and the administration bill would
provide it by authorizing the establishment of national emission stand-
ards for these sources.
132
National standards, however, whether air quality standards or sta-
tionary source emission standards, obviously would have to be applied
to many different situations. Accordingly, the administration bill pro-
vides for continued decentralization of the responsibility for imple-
mentation and enforcement.
The administration bill also would provide new tools for dealing
with a problem that has long been recognized as national in scope — the
problem of motor vehicle pollution. Of particular importance are
those provisions dealing with fuels and fuel additives. Motor vehicle
engines are not the sole cause of the problem. Engines, fuels, and ad-
ditives are interrelated causes and must be treated as such.
Now, let me describe the provisions of S. 3466 in greater detail, and
discuss corresponding provisions of the other bills you have under
consideration.
Under S. 3466, section 6 would authorize the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare to establish national air quality standards,
and section 7 would call upon each State to adopt an implementation
plan for each area within the State. Each standard would, as State
standards now do, set maximum permissible concentrations of a pol-
lutant per unit of ambient air.
National air quality standards would provide for protection of pub-
lic health and would guard against the environmental and economic
effects of air pollution. They would be derived from the best available
scientific knowledge and would be developed with the assistance of
experts within and outside the Federal Government.
Once formulated, such national standards would be published in
the Federal Register, and all interested parties, including the general
public, would have the opportunity to submit comments for considera-
tion prior to issuance of the standards.
Thus, where as each State now sets air quality standards for specific
pollutants on the basis of Federal air quality criteria documents —
Avhich describe effects of pollutants at various concentrations — the
Federal Government would, under S. 3466, establish uniform nation-
wide standards. We anticipate that these Federal standards would
also be based on criteria documents.
The provisions for national air quality standard-setting would not
impair any State's right to establish standards requiring higher levels
of air quality. This right is stated as a national policy in section 109
of the Clean Air Act, and there would be no change in this policy.
Following the promulgation of national standards, each State
would have 90 days to signify its intention of adoptmg an implemen-
tation plan. Each State would be expected to describe the steps it
would take to develop such a plan and to indicate which areas of the
State would be given priority.
In their implementation plans, the States would have to spell out
the measures to be taken to achieve and preserve national air quality
standards. As I have indicated, they would have the option of design-
ing their implementation plans to achieve or preserve higher than
national quality levels, if they wished to do so.
As you know, one of the express purposes of the Clean Air Act is
"to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources" (em-
phasis added). Accordingly, it has been and will continue to be our
view that implementation plans that would permit significant deterio-
133
ration of air quality in any area would be in conflict with this provi-
sion. We shall continue to expect States to maintain air of good quality
where it now exists.
State implementation plans Avould have to include provisions for
intergovernmental cooperation, particularly in dealing with inter-
state air pollution problems. Under the administration bill, it would
be a responsibility of the Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare to designate significant interstate problem areas. We estimate
that there are about 50 such areas at present. This number includes
21 of tlie first 57 areas marked for designation as "air quality control
regions" under the provisions of the existing Clean Air Act. _
Finally, implementation plans would have to include provisions for
(a) enforcement; (7j) preventing the occurrence of pollution episodes
during periods of adverse meteorological conditions; and (c) making
modifications to take account of changes in standards or the avail-
ability of improved pollution-control techniques.
States generally will be expected to submit their implementation
plans to t\\e Department of Health, Education, and Welfare no more
than 180 days after filing their letters of intent. If, however, their
letters of intent indicate that implementation plans for some areas can-
not be developed within this time period, and if there is good reason
wliy more time should be allowed, then the Department would be
authorized to grant an extension. If a State does not spell out any
such problems in its letter of intent but subsequently requests an ex-
tension, one still can be granted, but for not more than 90 days.
Upon enactment of this bill, States will be expected to begin at-
tacking air pollution in all their cities, counties, and towns. Many
States, not surprisingly, have not yet been able to mount such a broad
effort, and we cannot realistically expect every State to shift gears
overnight. For our part, we intend to support tlieir efforts. We will
continue and indeed augment our technical and financial assistance.
We expect that implementation plans would be developed on sched-
ule, particulary for areas where air pollution is most serious. For other
areas, however, extensions may be necessary. Indeed, by granting more
time for the development of implementation plans for areas of least
urgency, we can encourage the States to allocate their resources most
efficiently by focusing initially on areas of greatest immediate concern.
If a State fails to adopt an implementation plan for any area, the
Department would be empowered to prepare one and, after a public
hearing, to publish it in the Federal Register. If the State still had
n{^t adopted a plan, the Department would promulgate the one it had
developed.
In provisions corresponding to those I have been discussing, S. 3546
would provide for continued regional air pollution control efforts along
essentially the same lines as the Clean Air Act. S. 3546 calls for ac-
celerated designation of air quality control regions through a combi-
nation of Federal and State action. States would have 6 months from
enactment of the bill to designate air quality control regions in any
areas where none had been designated by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare.
States would continue to be responsible for adopting air quality
standards and implementation plans after the Dej^artment issued air
quality criteria and reports on control techniques. The timetable for
134
State action would be cut down by 2 months througli a reduction in
tlie time allowed for filing letters of intent.
As a general rule, under the administration bill, the timospan for
State action leading to submission of an implementation plan would
be 9 months. Under the present act the timespan is 15 months. Under
S. 3546 if would be 13 months.
The administration bill and S. 3546 are aimed at the same objec-
tive: to insure that air quality standards and implementation plans
are put into effect across the entire Nation. There is, however, a sig-
nificant difference between them in regard to responsibility for adopt-
ing air quality standards. In my view, there are three principal ad-
vantages in unifonii nationwide air quality standards, established by
the Federal Government :
First, there would be an opportunity to take into account factors that
transcend the boundaries of any single State. States cannot be expected
to evaluate the total environmental impact of air pollutants, or take
it into account in standard setting.
Second, States would be able to concentrate their resources on tlie
complicated and critical tasks of developing and carrying out imple-
mentation and enforcement plans.
And third, the process of putting air quality standards into effect
would be accelerated, primarily because there would no longer be
any time consumed in reviewing and approving air quality standards
for each air quality control region.
For these reasons, I believe that the approach we have proposed
promises far more effective results than that contained in S. 3546.
The administration bill and S. 3546 have common provisions for
public hearings prior to adoption of State implementation plans.
Public participation in State hearings on air quality standards has
been highly productive. I strongly feel that continued public involve-
ment in the evolution of State air pollution control programs must
be encouraged. Participation in hearings on implementation plans
will give citizens even greater opportunities to influence the course
of air pollution control efforts in their States and communities.
Ainong other things, S. 3546 also calls for review of air quality
standards at least every 5 years. Such a periodic reexamination would
be desirable whether air quality standards are set by the States, as
proposed in S. 3546, or by the "Federal Government,' as proposed in
the administration bill. Indeed, the reexamination process — with re-
spect both to quality standards and control technologv — should be
continuous.
I come now to the second major element of the administration bill :
The provisions that would authorize the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare to establish national emission standards for cer-
tain stationary sources of air pollution. I refer to our proposed section
112, in section 8 of the bill. With one important exception, such na-
tional emission standards would apply only to new stationary sources,
of certain designated classes or types." The "exception would involve air
pollutants which are extremely' hazardous to health; in such cases,
national emission standards could be applied to all stationary source
emissions.
In general, existing stationary sources of air pollution are so nu-
merous and diverse that the problems they pose can most efHciently
135
be attacked by State and local agencies. Even with air quality stand-
ards being set nationally, as proposed in the administration bill, the
steps needed to deal with existing stationary sources would necessarily
vary from one State to another and, within States, from one area
to another.
In the years ahead, however, many potentially significant new sta-
tionary sources of air pollution will come into being as a result of the
iS'ation's growing demands for electric power, manufactured goods,
and other necessities and amenities of modern life. Large stationary
sources, such as electric generating plants, iron and steel mills, and
petroleum refineries frequently have adverse effects not only on
public health and welfare in their own communities but also on air
quality over broad geographic areas. This problem is one that demands
natiorial attention. If we are ever to begin preventing air pollution,
instead of just attacking it after the fact, then we must at least in-
sure thiU. R-iajor nevr stationary sources, wherever they are located, are
designed and equipped to reduce emissions to the minimum level con-
sistent with available technology. The application of national emis-
sion standards would also tend to minimize the competitive advantage
of locating a new facility in an area where emission standards are
less rigorous than in other areas. This would eliminate "polluter hav-
ens."
AVith respect to pollutants that are extremely hazardous to health,
national emission standards could be applied to existing, as well as new,
stationary sources. Among those pollutants that might require applica-
tion of national emissions standards are asbestos, beryllium, cadmium,
biological aerosols, and chlorinated hj^drocarbons. Under the adminis-
tration bill, new sources of extremely hazardous pollutants could not
be constructed or oj^erated without a specific exemption from the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; such exemptions
would be granted only where we are satisfied that emissions would be
controlled sufficiently to preclude hazards to public health. Existing
sources would be required to take any measures necessary to comply
with the applicable national emission standards.
States would be expected to assume the primary responsibility
for enforcing national emission standards. Following the adoption
of such standards, States would be expected to develop enforcement
plans. If a State failed to do so, or if it developed a plan which was
madequate, the Department would be empowered to promulgate such
a plan after holding a conference of appropriate Federal and State
agencies.
S. 3546 approaches the prevention of air pollution from new sta-
tionary sources in a different way. It would provide for issuance of
Federal regulations to insure that new buildings, structures, or other
facilities are equipped with the best available air pollution control
techniques. A Federal or State certificate of compliance would have to
be obtained before construction could begin.
This provision apparently would apply to all new buildings, in-
cluding single-family homes, and would necessitate the establishment
of a Federal-State system for review of construction plans.
From the standpoint of most efficient use of the resources available
for air pollution control activities, the provisions of the administra-
tion bill are superior, because they would provide for efforts to be
136
focused on the most significant new stationary source problems and
on tliose existing sources whose emissions pose the greatest threat to
heahh. .
Under the administration bill, enforcement of air quality and emis-
sion standards would be primarily a State responsibility, as I have
indicated, but the bill provides for effective Federal action m those
cases Avhere States fail to get the job done. The scope of Federal
enforcement authority would be broadened to cover all air pollution
problems, whether interstate or intrastate, and enforcement proce-
dures would be greatly streamlined.
The principal enforcement provisions of the administration bill
are contained in the proposed section 113. Federal enforcement action
could be initiated whenever (a) air quality fails to meet the appli-
cable air quality standards, or stationary source emissions are in
excess of applicable national emission standards, and (b) this results
from a State's failure to carry out its implementation plan. There
would be a two-step procedure, rather than the three-step procedure
prescribed by the Clean Air Act. A hearing would be the first step.
Following such a hearing, the Department would specify the reme-
dial action to be taken and allow a period of not less than 60 days
for such action to get underway. Then, if the specified action were
not taken, the Department could ask the Attorney General to bring
suit to enjoin continued failure to comply. Federal district courts
Avould be authorized to assess fines of up to $10,000 per day for failure
to take remedial action specified by the Department. This procedure
would be more expeditious and effective than present provisions.
Under S. 3546, Federal enforcement would involve issuance of
abatement orders, with compliance to be achieved in no more than 72
hours in any case where violation of emission control requirements is
said to be occurring. In other cases, presumably those in which a num-
ber of sources are alleged to be contributing to a violation of aid qual-
ity standards, the alleged polluters could request a hearing on the
abatement orders. Any decision made by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare after such a hearing could be appealed in
court, but the Department's findings, if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole, would be conclusive. If
necessary for the purpose of enforcing an abatement order, the
Department would be empowered to institute civil action.
In our judgment, the enforcement procedure proposed in the ad-
ministration bill is preferred because it is simpler and more direct.
An important advantage is that it would require that the Department
simply specify the remedial action to be taken, while S. 3546 would
require that abatement orders "contain a detailed description of the
conditions or practices which cause or constitute a violation."
S. 3546 includes two other provisions relating to control of air pol-
lution from stationary sources. One would give the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare the right of entry to buildings, struc-
tures, or other facilities and would authorize the Department to re-
quire polluters to measure emissions in cases where a final abatement
order has been issued. If the first part of this provision were modified
to provide explicitly for inspections and access to relevant informa-
tion, we would view it favorably; such authority, within the frame-
work of the administration's bill's enforcement provisions, could help
to insure an effective enforcement j)rogram.
137
The other provision dealing with stationary sources would require
compliance with applicable air quality standards and emission control
requirements as a condition of eligibility for Federal loans, grants,
licenses, permits, and contracts for construction and Federal procure-
ment of goods or products.
We have serious reservations about this j^ro vision. Effective enforce-
ment would require a very substantial and probably unwarranted in-
vestment of resources. Moreover, the objective would be accomplished
more simply and directly through State or Federal enforcement of
air quality and stationary source emission standards, as proposed in
the administration bill.
I turn now to the area of motor vehicle pollution control. The estab-
lisliment and enforcement of national emission standards for new
motor vehicles constitute the cornerstone of our program. The admin-
istration bill would improve our enforcement activity m three principal
ways : (1) by authorizing assembly line testing of new motor vehicles;
(2) by providing for revocation of certificates of conformity when as-
sembly line testing shows that new vehicles do not meet the standards ;
and (3) by prohibiting importation of motor vehicles that are not
equipped to comply with the standards.
Under the existing provisions of the Clean Air Act, testing of pro-
totypes in advance of actual production is the principal means of deter-
mining whether new motor -^-ehicles will comply with the standards. If
prototype testing indicates that vehicles will comj^ly, the manufacturer
is issued a certificate of conformity valid for a period of not less than
one year. We are finding, however, that production models do not per-
form as well as the prototypes.
To help rectify this situation, we intend to make changes in our
test procedures under our present statutory authority. But to insure
that motor vehicles are capable of meeting the standards when they
come off an assembly line, we must test them at that point. Further-
more, if such testing shows that vehicles are not capable of meeting
the standards, we must be able to require that manufacturers make
whatever adjustments are necessary. Clear authority to revoke cer-
tificates of conformity would enable us to accomplish this.
AYith regard to importation, the existing provisions of the Clean
Air Act require that new automobiles imported for sale in this coun-
try must be equipped to comply with our national standards. This
means, however, that if the title to a vehicle was transferred to the
purchaser before the vehicle was brought in, or if a vehicle is brought
in for purposes other than sale or resale, such a vehicle is exempt from
compliance with the standards. One effect of this exemption is that
persons returning from other countries may legally bring in non-
complying motor vehicles. Since all the major foreign manufacturers
make vehicles equipped to meet our standards, there appears to be no
justification for this exemption.
The administration bill also would enable us to open a second front
in the Nation's fight against air pollution from motor vehicles. I refer
to the bill's provisions for registration and regulation of fuels and fuel
additives used in transportation. There is great potential for improv-
ing the Nation's air quality through modification of motor vehicle
fuels, particularly gasoline. By controlling the chemical composition
138
of gasoline and the use of fuel additives, we can significantly reduce
motor vehicle emissions.
The problem of motor vehicle pollution is the product of a complex
combustion system involving engines, fuels, and fuel additives. Emis-
sions can be reduced to some extent through alterations of any of these
elements 'or through such other means as the use of control devices
of one kind or another. But it is necessary to bear in mind that all
the elements of the motor vehicle combustion and emission control
systems are interrelated; if engines are altered, the fuel may also
need to be altered. This means that effective control of motor vehicle
i^ollution requires a capability of dealing not only with engines and
control devices but also with fuels and fuel additives. Under the
existing provisions of the Clean Air Act, however, Federal action can
be taken only with respect to the motor vehicle itself. Fuels are
beyond our reach. The Federal Government must be in a position
to require fuel modifications and changes in the use of additives. The
provisions of the administration bill are intended to open the way
for an effective regulatory program.
I now turn to S. Z'2-2d, which, like the administration bill, would
extend the duration of the Clean Air Act for another 3 years and
would amend the act in seA'eral respects.
S. 3229 contains provisions designed to stimulate the development
of low-pollution vehicles of various types. One of these would ex-
plicitly authorize the Department to support, by means of grants
and contracts, programs for the development of low-pollution alterna-
tives to the internal coml^ustion engine. We hilly agree that support
for such programs is desirable. But it does not require new legislation.
Under section 104 of the Clean Air Act, we are greatly increasing
our ]:)rogram of research and development in the area of motor
vehicle pollution control. A major portion of this increased effort
will be focused on development of low-pollution alternatives to the
internal combustion engine. Furthermore, to stimulate parallel efforts
in the private sector, a program involving the i5urchase and testing
of low-pollution vehicles individually and in fleets is being imple-
mented. In fiscal 1971, we are proposing to earmark at least $12
million for these activities, about $9 million of which would be devoted
to the development of unconventional power sources.
Another provision in S. 3229 designed to stimulate development
of low-pollution vehicles would authorize the Secretary of Healrli,
Education, and Welfare to prescribe "special"' emission standards for
any class of vehicles; such standards would have to be at least 50
percent more stringent than the standards required for such class
of vehicles. Voluntary compliance with such '"special-' standards would
be rewarded by certification of the vehicle or engine as being a "low-
emission" vehicle or engine.
It is not clear what incentive for development of a "low-emission"
vehicle is provided by the mere assurance of such a certificate. In
contrast, our existing program, described above, of purchasing low-
pollution vehicles individually and in fleets for testing does provide
what would seem to be a requisite financial incentive.
In this connection, it may be noted that the emission standards we
plan to prescribe for 1975 model vehicles would reduce emissions more
than 50 percent below current levels.
139
The new carbon monoxide standards, proposed for the 1975 model
year, represent a reduction of 52 percent below the current standards.
The new hydrocarbon standards, also for the 1975 model year, rep-
resent a reduction of 77 percent. The proposed nitrogen oxides stand-
ards, proposed for the 1973 model year, will reduce nitrogen oxides
emissions by 50 percent; a further reduction is proposed for the
1975 model year. Finally, the proposed standards for particulate
emissions, to' take efl'ect in the 1975 model year, would produce a
reduction of 66 percent.
Another provision of S. 3229 would authorize the Department to
require automobile manufacturers to provide warranties on air pol-
lution control equipment installed in compliance with standards estab-
lished under the Clean Air Act. While the exact nature and scope
of such warranty requirements would have to be worked out, the
l)roposed authority appears to be a desirable additional means to in-
sure proper performance of emission control systems throughout the
useful life of an automobile.
Also with respect to the problem of motor vehicle pollution, S. 3229
would authorize the Department to establish separate emission stand-
ards for connnercial vehicles, both old and new. Present provisions of
the Clean Air Act make no distinction between commercial and non-
commercial vehicles. Furthermore, we currently are authorized to
establish standards only for new vehicles.
This proposal appears to have merit. The proposed new authority
would enable us, for example, to establish special emission standards
for commercial vehicles operated in fleets, such as taxicabs. Fleet
vehicles generally are used more intensively than noncommercial
vehicles and thus make a proportionately greater contribution to the
problem of air pollution, particularly in large urban areas. But fleet
operation has an ofl'setting advantage. The centralized maintenance
and servicing facilities usually associated with fleet operations offer
opportunities for the application of air pollution control techniques,
such as the use of special fuels, that generally would not be practical
for family cars.
The proposed authority to set standards for commercial vehicles
also could be used to broaden our attack on the obnoxious problem of
diesel smoke and its odors. Techniques capable of producing a signifi-
cant reduction of diesel smoke are becoming available in 1970. But
while we began to set standards for new diesel-powered vehicles under
existing provisions of the Clean Air Act, there is no way of insuring
that new techniques will be applied to older diesel-powered vehicles.
S. 3229 also would authorize the Department to establish national
standards for the control of emissions from aircraft, vessels, loco-
motives, and agricultural vehicles. While vessels, locomotives, and
agricultural vehicles are not major sources of air pollution at this time
and do not require immediate attention, we support the principle of
making them subject to emission controls.
Aircraft also account for only a small fraction of the total air pol-
lution problem, but their emissions are substantially concentrated in
the vicinity of metropolitan airports. Moreover, air traffic is steadily
increasing. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, in
conjunction with the Department of Transportation, has already
taken a major step toward controlling air pollution from aircraft.
At a meeting on January 20, 1970, attended by representatives of 31
43-166 — 70 — pt. 1 10
140
airlines, we presented our estimate of the shortest feasible schedule for
installation of "smokeless" combustors in JT8D engines. These engines
account for a major share of the jet aircraft smoke problem. The air-
lines have agreed to install such combustors in accordance with this
schedule, whicli means that this program will be substantially com-
pleted by late 1972. By mid- April, we expect to have detailed action
plans from the airlines. The Federal Aviation Administration will
furnish us with quarterly reports on the progress of this work.
Smoke is not the only pollutant emitted by aircraft. Accordingly,
we are conducting and supporting research to define niore precisely
all components of aircraft emissions and to explore various means of
controlling gaseous emissions, including nitrogen oxides. We will seek
prompt application of new knowledge that is obtained. If the enact-
ment of laws and regulations becomes necessary, we will recommend
that approach. But where we can make progress in the absence of leg-
islation, we will do so.
Another provision of S. 3229 would authorize the Department to
register organic solvents and solvent-containing products, to recom-
mend emission standards applicable to such products, and to establish
such standards in the event that there are conflicting State regulations
or that an air pollution prolalem associated with solvents poses an im-
minent and substantial danger to public health or welfare.
The use of solvents and solvent-containing products, such as paints,
is a source of hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere and thus
contributes to air pollution, particularly photochemical smog. The
magnitude of this contribution varies significantly from one area to
another.
In the National Capital area, for example, solvents account for an
estimated 4 percent of hydrocarbon emissions; in New York, they
account for about 26 percent ; and in Los Angeles, for about 20 per-
cent. In Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay area and in
New York State, regulations pertaining to solvent emissions and the
solvent content of paints and other architectural coatings are already
in effect.
Since varying State and local regulations may cause 2)roblems not
only to manufacturers of solvent-containing products but also to orga-
nizations such as the General Services Administration and the Depart-
ment of Defense, which have their own specifications for such prod-
ucts, there may be a need for Federal involvement in dealing with
solvent emissions. The provisions of S. 3229 would provide a basis for
such involvement, but further study is necessary to determine what
measures would be most effective.
In summary, I believe that enactment of the administration bill is
essential to the Nation's attack on air pollution. Some of the provisions
of S. 3229 and S. 3546 would also contribute to this effort. I recognize
that we do not all agree on all the provisions of these bills. But I am
sure we can agree on the need to itensify and expand our efforts be-
yond the existing provisions of the Clean Air Act.
I turn now, Mr. Chairman, to the proposals regarding noise con-
tained in title II of S. 3229. Unwanted sound is a major component
of environmental pollution. It is a growing problem, and there is need
for intensified research leading ultimately to effective abatement and
control procedures. Dr. Alexander Cohen, the Department's leading
141
noise expert, will describe for you the present state of the art and our
ongoinc; programs hiter this morning.
The problem is not whether to tackle "noise pollution" but how
best to proceed. Perhaps some background would be useful.
When the Enviromnental Quality Council (now the Cabinet Com-
mittee on the Environment) was established, the importance of this
environmental problem was recognized in the creation of a Connnittee
on Xoise, chaired by the Secretary of Commerce, with the Secretaries
of Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Health,
Education, and Welfare as members. This Committee developed a pre-
liminary strategy for a national attack on noise pollution. With the
passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the newly
created Council on Environmental Quality is undertaking a compre-
hensive review of the Committee's report.
S. 3229 would establish a new Office of Noise Abatement and Con-
trol in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We do
not think it would be desirable to separate out in this way the prob-
lems of noise from all our other environmental and health programs.
Beyond this reason for recommending against enactment of title II
of S. 3229, there are two others of even greater weight :
(1) We strongly believe that it would be unwise to establish such an
office by statute. To do so would diminish the organizational flexi-
bility that is so essential to the Department's efficient and effective
use of its total resources.
(2) As I have noted, the Congress recently created the Council on
Environmental Quality with a comprehensive mandate in the area
of ecology. It has just embarked on thorough reviews and studies of
noise pollution and all other environmental components. We do not
recommend any further assignment of statutory function, pending the
Council's recommendations to the President and those of the White
House Council on Government Organization.
It will now be a pleasure to take your questions, Mr. Chairman, on
all the subjects we have covered in this statement.
]Mr. Vexemax. ]Mr. Chairman, also, I thinlv the committee is to be
commended for their efforts in the past and their interest in develop-
ing legislation that has set an objective to work toward.
As far as Senator Randolph's opening statement is concerned, I will
fry to respond to the various issues he raised in more detail, or ]Mr.
Johnson or Dr. Middleton might.
But to bring you up to date on the air quality control regions, we
presently have 29 of the 57, and we anticipate having 40 by June 30,
and we propose that all 57 will be designated by September 1.
With regard to the reports that were received by the committee on
Friday, I shall not attempt to make excuses for the Department for
the delay. I realize that the one report was due in November and the
other two were due in January. They were held up in the review proc-
esses. We would hope that in the future the connnittee would have
additional time in receiving this.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I think the con-
cern that has been expressed in the preliminary statements is also
shared by the President, who rightly described the air as our most
vital resource and air pollution as our most serious environmental
problem. To strengthen and to speed up the Nation's attack on this
142
problom, he lias proposed a series of amendments to the Clean Air
Art. These projwsals are before voii today in S. 3466.
The administration bill is not a radicial departure from the present
Clean Air Act. Eather, it preserves the best features of that act and
provides for necessary change. It guarantees continuity with ongomg
efforts. ■ .....
The administration bill does break new ground m its recognition ot
the fact that the Nation's air resource is indivisible. Air, polluted or
not, crosses the imaginary lines that divide State from State. Air
quality, therefore, is not a matter of purely local or regional concern.
It is of national concern. And that national concern must be reflected
in the way air quality standards are established.
Tender the proposed'bill, two other matters of national concern also
would be the focus of national efforts: (a) new stationary sources of
air pollution that would contribute substantially to endangering public
health or welfare; and (&) any stationary source emitting pollutants
that are extremely hazardous to health. S. 3466 would authorize the
establishment of iiational emission standards for these sources.
National air quality standards and stationary source emission
standards obviously would have to be applied to many different situa-
tions. Thus, the administration bill provides for continued decentral-
ization of the responsibility for tlie implementation and enforcement
aspects.
The measure would also provide new tools for dealing with a problem
that has long been recognized as national in scope — the problem of
motor vehicle pollution. Of particular importance are the provisions
dealing with fuels and fuel additives. Automobile engines are not the
sole caiise of the problem. Engines, fuels, and additives are interrelated
problems and must be treated as such.
Later in this statement I want to make note of certain actions we
already are taking in this area of fuels and fuel additives — pending
congressional action on our proposed legislation.
Now, let me highlight the specific provisions of the bill. Section 6
would authorize the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to
establish national air quality standards, and section 7 would call upon
each State to adopt an implementation plan for each area within the
State. Our objective is to insure that air quality standards are put into
effect across the entire Nation. We see three principal advantages in
the establishment by the Federal Government of nationwide uniform
standards :
First, no State can be expected to take into account, in standard set-
ting, the total effects of air pollution beyond its own boundaries.
Second, States would be able to concentrate their resources on the
critical tasks of implementation and enforcement.
And, third, the process of putting air quality standards into effect
would be accelerated, because there would be no time consumed in
reviewing and approving standards for each air quality control region.
National air quality standards would be derived from the best avail-
able scientific knowledge, developed both within and outside the Fed-
eral Government.
Once formulated, such national standards would be published in the
Federal Register, and all interested parties, including the general pub-
lic, would have an opportunty to submit comments for consideration
prior to issuance of the standards.
143
Therefore, whereas each State now sets air quality standards for
specific polhitants on the basis of Federal air quality criteria docu-
ments— which describe effects of pollutants at various concentrations—
the Federal Government, under our bill, would establish uniform
standards nationwide.
The provisions for national air quality standard setting would not
impair any State's right to establish standards requiring higher levels
of air quality. . i • • 1,4.
I think we should particularly emphasize that point, that this right
is stated as a national policy in the Clean Air Act, and it is a right that
we reaffirm.
Following the promulgation of national standards, each State would
have 90 days to sio-nify its intention to adopt an implementation plan,
describe the steps""it would take to develop such a plan, and indicate
which areas of the State would be given priority.
In their implementation plans, the States would have to spell out
the measures to be taken to achieve and preserve national air quality
standards— or even higher air qua] ity levels. _
One of the express purposes of the Clean Air Act is ;'to protect
and enhance the qualitv of the Xation's air resources." It will continue
to be our view that im])lementation plans that would permit significant
deterioration of air quality in any area would be in conflict with the
provisions of the act. We"^do not' intend to condone "backsliding."
If an area has air quality which is better than the national standards,
they would be required to stay there and not pollute the air even
further, even though they may'be below national standards.
State implementations' plans would have to include provisions for
intergovernmental cooperation, particularly in dealing with interstate
air pollution problems. Under the administration bill, it would be an
HEW responsibility to designate significant interstate problem areas.
We estimate that there are about 50 such areas at present. This num-
ber includes 21 of the first 57 areas marked for designation as air
quality control regions under the provisions of the existing Clean Air
Act. ' ..■,.•!
States generally will be expected to submit implementation plans
no more than 6 months after filing letters of intent. If there is good
reason why more time should be allowed, for some areas withm the
State, then an extension would be authorized.
In provisions corresponding to those I have been discussing, fe. 3545,
sponsored by the chairman, would provide for continued regional air
pollution control efforts alons^ essentially the same lines as the Clean
Air Act. S. 3546 calls for accelerated designation of air quality con-
trol regions through a combination of Federal and State action.
The States would continue to be responsible for adopting air quality
standards and implementation plans. The timetable for State action
would be cut down by two months through a reduction m the time
allowed for filing letters of intent. .„ , . „
As a general rule, under the administration bill, the time span tor
State action leading to submission of an implementation plan would be
9 months. Under the present act, the time span is 15 months. Under
S. 3546, it would be 13 months. . .
I come now to the second major element of the administration bill;
authorization for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
144
to establish national emission standards for certain stationary sources
of air pollution.
With one important exception, such national emission standards
would apply only to new stationary sources of certain specified types
and classes. The exception would involve air pollutants that are ex-
tremely hazardous to health in such cases, national emission stand-
ards could be applied to all stationary source emissions.
In general, existing stationary sources of air pollution are so numer-
ous and diverse that the problems they pose can most efficiently be
attacked by State and local agencies. Even with air quality standards
being set nationally, dealing with existing stationary sources would
necessarily vary from one State to another and, within States, from
one area to another.
In the years ahead, however, many potentially significant new sta-
tionaiy sources of air pollution will come into being— to meet growing
demands for electric power, manufactured goods, and other necessi-
ties and amenities of modern life. Large stationary sources, such as
electric generating plants, iron and steel mills, and petroleum refineries,
often have adverse effects on air quality over broad geographic areas,
and this is the kind of problem that demands national attention.
If we are ever to begin preventing air pollution, instead of just
attacking it after the fact, then we must at least insure that major new
stationary sources, wherever they are located, are designed and
equipped to reduce emissions to minimum feasible levels using the
latest available technology.
The application of national emission standards would also tend to
minimize the competitive advantage of locating a new facility in an
area where emission standards are less rigorous than in other areas.
This would eliminate "polluter havens" that exist today.
With respect to pollutants that are extremely hazardous to health,
national emission standards could be applied to existing, as well as
new, stationary sources. Such pollutants might include asbestos, beryl-
lium, cadmium, biological aerosols, and chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Under the administration bill, new sources of extremely hazardous
pollutants could not be constructed or operated without a specific
exemption from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
And such exemptions would be granted only where we are satisfied
that emissions would be effectively controlled. Existing sources would
be required to take any measures necessary to comply with the applica-
ble standards.
S. 3546 approaches the prevention of air pollution from stationary
sources in a different way. It would provide for Federal regulations to
insure that new buildings, structures, or other facilities are equipped
with the best available air pollution control teclmiques.
This provision apparently would apply to all new buildings and
would mean establishing a Federal-State system for review of con-
struction plans.
From the standpoint of most efficient use of available resources, we
feel the proWsions of our bill are preferable. It would focus on the
most significant new stationary source problems and on those existing
sources whose emissions pose the gi'eatest threat to health.
Although States would have primary responsibility for enforce-
ment of air quality and emission standards, our bill provides for effec-
tive Federal action where States fail to get the job done.
145
Federal enforcement action could be initiated whenever (a) air
quality fails to meet the applicable air quality standards, or stationary
source emissions are in excess of applicable national emission stand-
ards, and (h) this results from a State's failure to carry out its imple-
mentation plan.
There would be a two-step procedure, rather than the three-step
procedure under the existing act. A hearing would be the first step.
Then the Department would specify the remedial action to be taken,
and allow a period of not less than 60 days for such action to get
under way. If the specified action were not taken, the Department
could ask the Attorney General to bring suit to enjoin failure to com-
ply. Federal district courts would be authorized to assess fines up to
$10,000 a day. _ _ .
Under S. 3546, Federal enforcement would involve issuance of abate-
ment orders. If alleged polluters requested a hearing on an abatement
order, a decision made by the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare after such a hearing could be appealed in court. The Depart-
ment's findings, if supported by substantial evidence on the record
considered as a whole, would be conclusive. If necessary, in order to
enforce an abatement order, the Department could institute civil
action.
In our judgment, the enforcement procedure we propose is prefer-
able because, as already described, it is simpler and more direct.
S. 3546 includes two other provisions relating to control of air pol-
lution from stationary sources. One would give our Department the
right of entry to buildings, structures, or other facilities and would
authorize us to require polluters to measure emissions in cases where a
final abatement order has been issued.
We view this provision favorabh', but we would suggest that it be
made more explicit to provide specifically for inspections and access to
relevant information. Such authority, within the framework of our
bill's enforcement provisions, could help to insure an effective enforce-
ment program.
The other provision would require compliance with applicable
standards and control requirements as a condition of eligibility for
Federal loans, grants, licenses, permits, and contracts for construction,
and Federal procurement of goods or products.
We have some reservations about this particular provision, which
is the concept of enforcement through Federal procurement that is
presently being studied at the Federal level. But effective enforcement
would require a very substantial and possibly unwarranted invest-
ment of resources.
Moreover, the objective could most likely be accomplished more sim-
ply and directly through State or Federal enforcement or air quality
and emission standards, as proposed in the administration bill.
I would now like to turn to the area of motor vehicle pollution con-
trol. The establishment and enforcement of national emission stand-
ards for new motor vehicles constitute the cornerstone of our program.
The administration bill would improve our enforcement activity in
three principal ways : (1) by authorizing assembly line testing of new
motor vehicles; (2) by providing for revocation of certificates of con-
formity when such testing shows that new vehicles do not meet the
standards; and (3) by prohibiting importation of all motor vehicles
that are not equipped to comply with the standards.
146
Under the existing act, testing of prototypes in advance of actual
production is the principal means of determining whether new motor
veliicles will comply with the standards. If we find that they will, the
manufacturer is issued a certificate of conformity. We have found,
however, that production models do not j)erform as well as the
prototypes.
To insure that vehicles meet the standards when they come off the
assembly line, we must test them at that point. And if they fail to
measure up, we must l^e able to require that manufacturers make what-
ever adjustments are necessary. Clear authority to revoke certificates
of conformity would enable us to accomplish this.
Tlie administration bill also would enable us to open a second front
in the fight against air j^olhition from motor vehicles. I refer to the
bill's provisions for registration and regulation of fuels and fuel addi-
tives used in transportation.
Effective control of motor vehicle pollution requires that we deal
not only with engines and control devices but also with fuels and fuel
additives.
Under the existing act, however, the Federal action can be taken
only with respect to the motor vehicle itself. Fuels are beyond our
reach. The Federal Government nnist be in a position to require fuel
modifications and changes in the use of additives.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the standards we
recently proposed in the Federal Register for 1975 model automobiles.
And much of it has centered on the lead additive now used in almost
all gasoline.
The proposed 1975 standards call for major reductions in emissions
of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. They also re-
quire, for the first time, control of particulate emissions. Much of
this form of emissions is lead — and it appears unlikely that the 1975
standard for particulates can be met without the removal or major re-
duction of lead in gasoline.
Moreover, devices that the auto manufacturers plan to use in order
to achieve the 1975 standards for gaseous emissions cannot be used
with leaded gasolines.
Most firms m both the automobile and petroleum industries have rec-
ognized that lead must soon be removed from gasoline. Automobile
manufactures are preparing to market 1971 cars that can operate satis-
factorily on low-octane unleaded fuel. A number of major oil com-
panies either have plans or have indicated a willingness to make un-
leaded gasoline available for those vehicles.
There are still many questions to be resolved — such as the timing of
the removal of lead from gasoline, and the number and types of fuels
to be marketed. And the answers will have a significant impact both
on consumers' pocketbooks and on the quality of the air we breathe.
Members of the industries involved have recognized the need for
Federal leadership in suggesting the answers, and our ])ill would give
us the needed regulatory authority.
In the meantime, we must take advantage of the commendable will-
ingness of most petroleum companies to provide unleaded fuels. We
want to avoid fragmented and possibly counter-productive actions by
individual firms. Therefore, we are sending letters this week to execu-
tives in the petroleum industry requesting their views on the basic is-
147
sues as well as information on their pre^sent plans, resources, and
problems.
Then, on the basis of their responses — and working also with the
automobile and lead additive companies — we will seek t-o develop an
interim course of voluntary action.
I now turn to S. 3229, which, like the administration bill, would ex-
tend the Clean Air Act for 3 years and amend it in several respects.
S. 3229 contains provisions designed to stimulate the development of
low-pollution vehicles of various types. We certainly fully agree with
that objective, as the President's environmental message clearly indi-
cated. But we do not feel that new legislation is required, except for
Federal procurement.
Under section 104 of the existing act, we already are greatly in-
creasing our progi*am of research and development — with primary
emphasis on the development of low-pollution alternatives to the in-
ternal combustion engine. And to provide financial incentives for ef-
forts in the private sector, HEW has initiated a program for the
purchase and testing of low-pollution vehicles, individually and in
fleets.
In fiscal 1971, we propose to earmark at least $12 million for these
activities — about $9 million of which would be devoted to the develop-
ment of unconventional power sources.
Another provision of S. 3229 would authorize the Department to
require automobile manufacturers to provide warranties on air pollu-
tion control equipment. While the exact nature and scope of such
warranty requirements would have to be worked out, the proposed
authority might well be a desirable additional means to insure proper
performance of emission control systems throughout the useful life
of an automobile.
S. 3229 would also authorize the Department to establish separate
emission standards for commercial vehicles, both old and new, and
we believe this proposal appears to have merit.
It would enable us, for example, to establish special emission stand-
ards for commercial vehicles oi^erated in fleets, such as taxicaljs. We
have found that fleet vehicles generall}" are used more intensively
than noncommercial vehicles and thus make a proportionately greater
contribution to the problem of air pollution, particularly in the
large urban areas.
On the other hand, the centralized maintenance and servicing facili-
ties usually associated with fleet operations offer opportunities for
the ap]:)lication of control techniques — the use of special fuels, for
example — that generally would not be practical for family cars.
The proposed authority to set standards for commercial vehicles
also could be used to broaden our attack on the obnoxious problem
of diesel smoke and its odors.
S. 3229 also would authorize the Department to establish national
standards for the control of emissions from aircraft, vessels, locomo-
tives, and agricultural vehicles.
While vessels, locomotives and agricultural vehicles are not now
major pollution sources, and do not require immediate attention,
we support the principle of ultimately making them subject to emis-
sion controls.
148
i
Our Department, in conjunction with the Department of Trans-^
portation, has already taken a major step toward controlling air
pollution from aircraft.
At a meeting last January, attended by representatives of 31 air-
lines, we proposed a tight "schedule for installation of "smokeless"
combustors in JT8D engines. These engines account for a major share
of the jet aircraft smoke problem. The airlines have agreed to our
schedule, which means that this program will be substantially com-
pleted by late 1972, By mid-April, we expect to have detailecl action
plans from the airline'^s, and the Department of Transportation will
furnish us quarterly progress reports.
Of course, smoke is not the only pollutant emitted by aircraft.
We are exi)loring various means of controlling gaseous emissions
as well. And we will seek prompt application of new knowledge.
If the enactment of laws and regulations becomes necessary, we will
recommend that approach. But where we can make progress in the
absence of legislation, we will continue to do so.
In summary, I believe that enactment of the administration bill is
essential to the Nation's attack on air pollution. Some of the provisions
of S. 3229 and S. 3546 would also contribute to this effort. I recognize
that we do not all agree on all the provisions of these bills. But I am
sure we can agree on the need to intensify and expand our efforts
beyond the existing provision of the Clean Air Act.
]\rr. Chairman, I would like to speak very briefly to the proposals
regarding noise contained in title II of S. 3229. Unwanted sound is
a major component of environmental pollution. It is a growing problem
and there is need for intensified research leading ultimately to effective
abatement and/or control procedures.
Dr. Alexander Cohen, the Department's leading noise expert, will
describe for you the present state of the art and our ongoing programs
later this morning.
I think we would like to em])hasize that the question is not whether
we should tackle the noise pollution problem, but the question is how
we can best tackle the noise pollution problem.
When the Environmental Quality Council (now the Cabinet Com-
mittee on the Environment) was established, the importance of this
problem was recognized in the creation of a Cabinet-level Committee
on Noise. This Committee developed recommendations for a national
attack on noise pollution.
Following passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, the newly-created Council on Environmental Quality is under-
taking a comprehensive review of the Committee's report.
S. 3229 would establish a new Office of Noise Abatement and Control
in the_ Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We do not
thinkit would be desirable to separate out, in this way, the problems
of noise from all our other environmental and health programs.
Beyond this reason for recommending against enactment of title II
of S. 3229, there are two others of even greater weight :
1. We strongly believe that it would be unwise to establish such an
office by statute. To do so would diminish the organizational flexibility
that is so essential to the Department's efficient and effective use of
its total resources.
2. We do not favor new statutory assignments of noise control re-
sponsibilities until the Council on "Environmental Qualitv has com-
149
pleted its review of ongoing activities and sul^mitted its recommenda-
tion:^ to the President.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that I liave covered most of tlie subjects that
are incorporated in the statement that was filed with the committee,
I would be very pleased to respond to any questions the members of
tlie committee may have. Those that I cannot respond to, I will pass off
to the experts from the Department who have been around since the
Clean Air Act was adopted.
Senator Muskte. There are two other statements, one of Dr. Cohen.
Is that going to be presented by Mr. Saperstein ?
]Mr. VEXE^rAN. No. Dr. Cohen's statement we anticipated would be
submitted this afternoon, along with Mr. Johnson's. Or do you want to
attempt to do it after the discussion now? We can do it either way.
Senator MrsKiK. At any rate, they are not essential at this point?
!Mr. Vexemax. Xo.
Senator ^Iuskie. I think, because of the number of committee mem-
bers present, we ought to enforce a 10-minute rule for questioning on
each of us, if there is no objection from the committee.
The new concept tliat the administration bill introduces with re-
spects to air pollution control and national ambient air standards,
combined in the case of two categories of industries, is national emis-
sion standards.
It is going to take a little time, I tliink, to sort out the differences
from the approach incorporated in the 1067 act.
I will try at least to begin the sorting out with a few questions, if
I may.
First of all, as I read the administration bill, it will repeal the author-
ity to designate the air quality control regions. You have stated in
your testimony that you are proceeding with the designation of air
quality control regions under the 1967 act. Can you relate to me how
you would move from the air quality control regions into this national
amlnent air standard? Why would you repeal the authority to desig-
nate such regions if you j^roposed to use them ?
Mr. Vex^emax. Well, first of all, with regard to moving ahead on the
57 regions, we do not have a new act at this point. Of course, we are
going to continue to proceed in that particular area. I will let Mr.
Jolmson speak to the question of the new procedure for getting the
entire Nation under air quality regions and the need for making the
modifications in the proposal. '
Senator Muskie. It might be helpful for the record if I might justify
my understanding of how the present act works.
Upon the designation of the air quality control regions, there is a
necessarv^ precondition, or the triggering device, for setting in motion
the standard-setting machinery.
The standard-setting machinery then applies to the criteria which
have been issued by the Department and which now include, I take it,
five in all.
Mr. Vexemax. Yes, five, and we anticipate there would be nine
by January 1.
Senator Muskie. So if you proceed with the designation of the air
quality control regions, you would continue the settings of the ambient
air standards under the 1967 act. This raises two questions: (1)
Wliether the air quality control regions, and whatever is done for
150
s^ettiii^ the standards under the 1967 act, would be rendered useless.
11 the administration proposal were adopted, what would be the
relationship ?
Mr. Johnson. Well, actually, Mr. Chairman, we would build on
what we have now. We think that what we are doing is still good.
We don't think we are moving fast enough. The new procedure in
the administration bill would give us, within a meaningful period
of time, actual national standards covering the entire Nation, all
50 States and attendant territories, within a period of about a year
and a half.
We Avould build on the air quality standards that are now existent
in the present air quality control regions. No regions would be dis-
solved until such time as future needs would determine that there
is a better configuration. So the 57 or more than we would have at
the time that the new bill came into effect would still be in force.
Also, the new bill recognizes that tliere will be situations which
would be interstate types of situations in whicli the Federal Govern-
ment should help work tliose problems out.
Senator Muskie. Would you have in mind eventually State control
machinery at the air quality control region level ?
Mr. Johnson. Very definitely, sir. The whole point is to ]dace the
States in control of the implementation of the national air quality
standards and the enforcement of those standards.
Senator Muskie. That is fully consistent with the present act.
Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
Senator Muskh:. In your statement, Mr. Under Secretary, you said
that the national ambient air standards should be based on criteria
documents. The proposed bill would repeal the section of the 1967 act
which provides for the establishment of criteria.
Mr. A^'eneman. No. I think we have to distinguish between the
criteria and standards. We would continue to develop criteria. It
would be the intention to base the standards upon the criteria that
were developed. Criterin. of course, are facts. Each criteria document
is the assimilation of factual information and data wliich are avail-
able to help determine what the standards should be, which would be
no less thai\ the criteria.
Senator Mfskie. ^Y^\y do you provide for the rei 'eal of the a iitlmrity
in the present law or mandate — it is not authority, but it is a mandate.
The provision of the law is thnt "the Secretavv shall after consultation
with the nppropriate advisorv committees. Federal departments and
agencies, from time to time, issue to the States such criteria of their
quality that in his judgment may be requisite for the protection of the
]iublic health and welfare," and so on.
One of tJie reasons wo wrote that into the 1967 act was that the au-
thoritv wJiicli was created in tlie 1963 act to establish criteria was never
Hpplemented. We wanted to make sure in the 1967 act that the Ton-
gross regarded this as an essential activity.
Now, vou pro]wse to ro]ieal it. If you' projiose to continue to use it.
wh V don 't we kee p i t i n th o 1 a w ? " '
^ Mr. Venehtan. Well, I think it is a point we could easily give, Mr.
(Miap-man. Tlie basis upoji yrhidi the standard would be set would re-
quire tlie continuation of ostablishin.q- criteria.
Now, if it makes the act clearer, the requiremon.t that we e.sta]:»lish
criteria, I think, could be verv easilv written back into the bill. I don't
151
think there would be any technical or administrative objections to
that. . ■ • ^ n J.
Senator Muskie. The reason I emphasize the point is the farst one
I already made.
Second, you say in your statement that the national ambient air
quality standards are minimal standards, and that States are in a
position to impose higher standards, if they so desire.
If the higher standards are to be imposed, it would seem to me that
they ought to be related to the criteria which must be developed by the
Federal Government. If they have developed uniform approaches to
the problems, there ought to be criteria to trigger that action on their
part.
Mr. Veneman. It w^ould be essential that there would be criteria,
Senator, and the kind of information by which the national quality
standards were developed, such as the criteria, would be made avail-
able to the States.
Now, as I say, I don't see any particular problem with being more
specific in the language. I don"t think it causes any particular problem.
Senator Muskie. Then the next question I would ask is with respect
to the standards. You also would repeal the provision for standard-set-
ting conferences. It is my impression that these are proving to be
a very useful way of involving citizen participation in the stand-
ard-setting process. In the case of the city of Pittsburgh, for example —
I am told this is the judgment of NAPCA — the conference on citizen
participation resulted in the toughest standards that have been set.
And this has all been accomplished because we have found a way to
channel public concern into an institutional form. Why, then, repeal
the standard-setting conferences ?
Mr. Veneman. ^Vell, I think we have to recognize two things, one
of which is the fact that we are establishing national standards. It is
not as it w^as previously where the hearings were conducted within
the State, which is a relatively simple thing to do.
Senator Muskie. The national standards are in two limited areas,
however, important. There are other areas, which you say you are not
going to touch on. You are going to touch on your national standards.
Mr. Veneman. Let me point out, I think in my testimony I at-
temj)ted to make it clear that during the period when the State was
developing its implementation plans that there would be the oppor-
tunity for public participation ; for public input. It is not a hearing in
the sense you have described it, as in the previous act. But there is the
opportunity for public comment.
Senator Muskie. Public comment is different from a hearing,
Mr. Veneman. Well, when you are setting a national standard, I
find it difficult to see how we will set up a national hearing process.
Now, we have seen some of that occur in Government. We have it
before our Department right now. We have had hearings going on for
over 2 years on food and drugs, and I don't think that is what the
public wants when they are dealing in setting standards. I think they
want action more rapidly than that.
Senator Muskie. My time is up, and I must leave this point. I will
return to it, unless my colleagues cover it further. But let me say this :
As I understand the national ambient air quality proposal, it deals
with ambient air. Standards, to me, imply mass machinery imple-
152
mentation, as well, at the level of those pollutants which are the objec-
tive. But you leave implementation to the States. It seems to me that
the States ought to be in a position, then, since your anibient quality
standards are minimal rather than maximum, to participate in the
standard'Setting procedure in a way that would put into motion the
toughest standards that the community wants at that time.
If you just issue minimum air quality standards that are applicable
nationally and open up a temptation to buy those — whatever the com-
munity's needs may be — and you don't provide for public participation
to screw up the local courage, to stiffen the standards as it may be nec-
essary in a community, then it seems to me you may be setting up here
a minimal standard rather than a maximum one, which we need in
some metropolitan areas.
Mr. Veneman. We don't preclude that. If the State wanted to go
above the national air quality standard, they could have public hear-
ings as frequently as they desired and as lengthy as they desired.
Senator Muskie. It wouldn't be provided in national legislation —
required, a mandate. I know one of the things industries don't like is
this public participation. I like to give it the blessing of national leg-
islation by writing it into the law. Senator Boggs can pursue this. I am
sure he is interested in the same point, and I don't want to trespass on
my colleague's time.
Senator Boggs. You are not. We want the chairman to take all of
the time he wants. You are very generous about sharing the time
with us.
To pursue that point a bit so that we can try to understand what
we are talking about : Section T of S. 3466 says, "Such State or inter-
state agency adopts a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of such standards of air quality, which adoption occurs
within 180 days after the filing of such letter of intent and other
material pursuant to subparagraph (A) and after public hearings
held not less than 30 days following publication of a proj^osed plan for
implementation," and so forth.
This specifically provides for public hearings at the State level in
support of whatever implementation plan the State may propose after
the national standards have been issued. Is that correct?
Mr. Vexeman. When the State is developing an implementation
plan, there would be an opportunity for public input, that is correct.
Senator Boggs. The implementation plan by the State is proposed
after the national air quality standards have been published, is that
correct ?
Mr. Veneman. Well, the State implementation would be the plan
by which they would put into effect within their State, the national
ambient air quality standards.
Senator Boggs. Or higher ?
Mr. Veneman. Or liigher. And I think the issue the chairman is
questioning is whether or not there must be public input into the
development of the national ambient air quality standards. There are
public hearings prior to development of the State implementation
plans. I think this is where we have to distinguish.
Senator Muskie. Will the gentleman yield ?
Senator Boggs. I yield.
Senator Muskie. It troubles me very much. This committee has had
long discussions about the difference between standards and criteria.
153
The criteria establish the relationship between pollutant and the health
and welfare effects. This is scientific and technical, and it is a necessary
base for setting the public policy.
But standards, in my understanding of them, include the imple-
mentation plan. That is the definition we have always had, and yet,
you are talking about the State plan to implement standards by the
standards already set by the Govermnent, which presumably include
timetables. If not, what is the meaning of "standards"' under what
we are discussing ?
Senator Boggs. Would you discuss that further ?
Mr. Johnson. I think we are talking about three things, Mr. Chair-
man. One, we are talking about the criteria against which all stand-
ards are developed. National ambient air quality standards would be
developed from criteria.
Xow, in order to meet these standards, you have to have developed
point source emission standards to give you the mix that ultimately
produces the ambient air quality that a community has to enjoy.
Now, in the development of the ambient air quality standards on a
national basis, this would be done by the Federal Government. It
would be proposed and published in the Federal Eegister, and we would
invite public comment on those national ambient air quality standards.
Now, it is important to point out here that these are not minimal.
These would be very tough standards designed to carry out the in-
tent and purpose of the Air Quality Act, to enhance and protect the
public health and welfare. Now, once we did
Senator Muskie. Let me read from the Secretary's statement. It
says, "The provisions for national air quality standard-setting would
not impair any State's right to establish standards requiring higher
levels of air quality."
Mr. Johnson. That is true.
Senator Muskie. If higher standards of air quality are technolog-
ically possible, then why does your proposed policy admit the pos-
sibility that the national standard would require something less than
is technologically possible ?
Mr. Johnson. That is very easily explained, Mr. Chairman. You
take an area like, let us say, Miami. They need very good, exceptionally
high-quality air that is much better than you are likely to get, even
with the best technology, in New York or Chicago, in order to con-
tinue to take care of their tourist trade.
Now, when they do this, they are going to be protecting against the
encroachment of that air quality by the introduction of new indus-
tries, even with the best technology, which would cause some deteriora-
tion in the quality of that air.
Now, that is where a local community can do more to carry out even
more stringent standards than would be proposed on a national basis.
You could carry that into any number of other situations and come up
with somewhat the same conclusion.
Senator Muskie. AVhat you are talking about relates to public policy
as it bears upon the siting of new industry, the zoning of land.
Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
Senator Muskie. What I thought we were talking about were air
quality standards and standards that would be met by standards of
pollutants and by the way in which we control emissions.
154
Mr. Johnson. Remember, I s^aid we have three things we are con-
sidering. One is criteria, against which you set stnadards; two, the na-
tional ambient — that is the general air quality — standards set by the
Federal Government; three, the implementation plan. A State has to
tell how it is going to control the point source emissions that contrib-
ute to whatever air pollution they are attempting to control, the power
sources, the industrial sources, the home incineration, this type of thing.
The}^ Avill set point source emission standards that they feel are de-
signed to achieve at least the national air quality or better, if they so
choose.
They can hold public liearings in order to do this so that the public
gets an opportunity to determnie how much better than the national
standards they want their air quality to be.
Senator Muskie. I am interested in all that you have said, but I
still haven't had an answer to the question. The Secretary's statement
clearly implies — and you said so — with respect to the performance of
existing polluters, the national air quality standards must be exceeded
by local standards or State standards. That means the State conceiv-
ably could, under the policy you are enunciating, require a stricter
application of technological possibilities than the national standards.
Do you mean that or don't you ?
Mr. Johnson. Perhaps there is another element that is being con-
fused here, Mr. Chairman. Within the existing legislation, and even
within the proposed legislation, there are certain responsibilities and
authorities given to the Federal Government for even point source
emission standards, as opposed to ambient air quality standards.
For instance, under the proposed legislation we would set national
standards for those types of new sources that contribute substantially
to the pollution of the air and that affect on the health and welfare
of the people.
In that instance, there would be at the Federal level point source
emission standards that would be applicable throughout the Nation
and that would be required b}^ all people that came within the purview
of that portion of the act.
Senator Muskie. I still haven't had an answer to my question, but
I will get back to it later. In order to fully pursue it, I have to raise
some other questions.
Thank you.
Senator Boggs. I have several other questions on other topics, but
I would like to yield to the other members of the committee if they
wish to pursue this question, Mr. Chairman. I think it is imj^ortant
that we get an understanding of this.
Senator Muskh:. Senator Spong ?
Senator Spong. I would just like to ask one question. Under the
present bill, S. 3466, there is no provision for public hearings prior
to the establishment of national standards ; is that correct ?
Mr. Venetian. Prior to enactment.
Senator Spong. So prior to this legislation at the present there is
no provision for public hearings, and you contemplate hearings at the
State level when the enforcement procedures are being reviewed ?
Mr. Veneman. During the 6-month period when they are de-
veloping their implementation plans there is requirement of public
155
hearings. There is an opportunity for public comment as it relates to
the establishment of Federal standards.
Senator Muskie. May I ask one question ?
Senator Spong. I yield.
Senator Muskie. I just want to know where we get into the ma-
chinery or the process of setting higher standards by the States. If
you merely issue national standards, whether they are minimal or
maximum, I am not satisfied. But put that aside for the moment. Let
us suppose you issue national standards and then you give the State
time and you provide hearings on implementing those standards. Now,
suppose the State wants tougher standards ?
All you are asking of them is not to demonstrate implementation
of tougher standards. You are not inviting them to make their input
at that point to raise the standards. You are saying, "Give us a plan
to implement the national standards."
You issue standards that aren't tough enough for a particular com-
munity. Then you say, all you have to show us is your plan for im-
plementation of these standards. And they give you such a plan.
Haven't you, in effect, frozen the situation for some time and really
diluted the potential for stricter standards ?
Mr. Veneman. "Well, let me, first of all, speak to the question of
whether or not we want additional language than we have in the
proposed bill.
Mr. Chairman, section 109 of the Clean Air Act, which would not
be repealed, provides :
"Nothing in this title shall prevent a State, political subdivision,
intermunicipal or interstate agency from adopting standards and
plans to implement an air quality program which will achieve a higher
level of ambient air quality than approved by the Secretary."
Senator Muskie. But you see, that provision would be in a different
context under the law as you would revise it than under the present
law. In the present law, that would be in the context of a procedure
which leaves the initiative for setting the standards in the first instance
at the State level. But you propose to eliminate that. You are setting
national standards. Then when you set them, you go to the States
and say, "Give us a pi an for implementing these."
Now, that isn't a time for them to set higher standards ; that is the
time for implementation, you say.
proposed bill.
Mr. Veneman. But there is nothing to preclude them from setting
higher standards at that time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Muskie. Under the present law, we go to them and we say,
"You set the standards. These standards shall measure the require-
ments of health and welfare in this air quality control region. There
is nothing minimal about it. If you don't do it, we will do it ; and we
will do it in terms of your requirements, the requirements of your
people."
This isn't minimal. If you ^o to New York City, imder the present
law, there is nothing about mmimal or maximum. You go in and say,
under the New York situation, "If you don't set standards sufficient to
meet the health and welfare requirements of your people, we will set
them."
43-166 — 70 — pt. 1 11
156
Under present law, you arc not fooling around with whether the na-
tional needs are tough enough. Should they be tougher? Are we in-|
vol ved in an implementation plan ?
You put a clear-cut responsibility for initiating the standards neces-
sary for particular control of the area right at the State level. You
pinpoint and you trigger the time for their initiative to run. When
that time is up, you give them no extension of time, such as your bill
provides, for delay. When that time runs out, if they haven't set those
standards, the Federal Government has a clear responsibility to go in
and not set minimal national standards.
]\Ir. Veneman. Minimal standards.
Senator Muskie. You would have to revise your statement. The
stanclards that are implied apply by the imperatives of the local
situation.
As I said at the outset of the hearing, we are interested in new
ideas; and we are going to explore yours. The question I am raising,
a very important one, is: At what point do you trigger the setting
of the highest standards required in a particular problem area?
It seems to me that you have opened the door to the possibility that
by seting national standards — whether you call them minimal or not,
standards that could be exceeded by your own language, something-
less than maximum for the Nation- — and asking for only implementa-
tion of those standards, you open up the possibility that the States
may be satisfied with something less than they ought to be in the given
problem area.
I think your legislation, even if your concept is sound — and we
might buy it, I don't know — I think a loophole here needs to be
closed. That is why I raise the question.
Mr. Johnson. I would like to speak very briefly to that because
there is a very definite point at which the States do get into the act.
They have an opportunity to work for higher standards, if that is
what they desire in their particular locality, and that is the time at
which they have to develop the implementation plan.
As they develop this implementation plan, they are obligated to
divulge what quality of air will obtain when they implement this
implementation plan.
By doing that, those citizens that are desirous of a higher quality
of control than required by the national standards can at that time
insist upon emission control procedures in terms of point source emis-
sion that will give them that higher quality of air.
Senator Spong. I think we all understand the difference here, Mr.
Chairman. I think it has been clearly stated, and we will just have to
resolve where the middle ground is.
We have all agreed that there is an urgency, and there has been
some mention of an overall time schedule when an effective program
could be initiated. But in reading this over, the proposed changes
to section 107 would require publication of regulations establishing
air quality standards within 6 months of enactment of the bill, but
there is no time schedule for the standards to go into effect. When
will the standards become effective ?
Mr. Veneman. Well, the bill provides 90 days after the setting of
standards for them to declare their intention to come up with their
implementation plan, then 6 months for them to come up with the
plan, so after 9 months they would be covered.
157
Senator Spong. I don't think that is sufficiently spelled out, but in
;he interest of time
Mr. Johnson. There may need to be clarification on that. The intent
is that each time new national air quality standards were developed,
;hat within the 9 months' time there would be an implementation
schedule and plan for that particular standard.
Senator Spong. Well, I would suggest, Mr. Jolmson, that we have
;o spell that out in the section.
Also, there is no definite timetable for issuance of information on
Dollution control techniques to the State, such as you have in section
B of 107. It seems to me that this also has to be spelled out. Do you
have any comment on that ?
Mr. Johnson. I am sorry, sir. Would you ask that question again ?
Senator Spong. What I am seeking is, first of all, when the stand-
ards would become effective. When we move down to section B, when
will the information be disseminated to the States under that section?
Is there any time schedule called for? It just seems to me we have a
irap in here, between the time the bill is enacted and the time the
States actually go into action. I am just exploring this to ask if that
is your impression, also.
jMr. Johnson. The intent is that no later than G months after en-
ictment of the bill, the Federal Government would issue such ambient
air quality standards as they have in preparation — and we have indi-
ated that we would probably have nine such standards by about
lanuary of 1971.
Senator Spong. They would be published in the Register ?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, they would be published.
Senator Spong. Then would they become effective ?
Mr. Chairman, I have used my 10 minutes.
Senator Randolph. Thank you. Senator Spong. Senator Cooper,
la ve you a desire to question further ?
Mr. Veneman. Mr. Chairman, may I make one correction, on
^hen the standards would be in effect. The Secretary would have
o
Senator Spong. All he would have to do is publish — 30 days
ifter they have been published, with due consideration given to the
lomments received from the public and other interested parties, they
u'ould become effective.
Mr. Veneman. Yes; publish in the Federal Register. And it does not
specify 30 days. There would be reasonable time for comment thereon
oy interested parties.
Senator Spong. I don't want to "nit-pick," but I will say that I think
f this bill is enacted, we must spell out a better timetable.
Mr. Veneman. Perhaps Mr. Saperstein from the General Counsel's
office can comment.
Mr. Saperstein. We can work with you, if you think that is neces-
sary. I just want to point out the rationale. Senator Muskie was
worried about our having public hearings throughout the country
before we establish the standards. That, of course, would take quite a
bit of time if we had to go all over the country and hold hearings on
what the standards should be.
What we have done is to take another method of promulgation of
regulations which is used by the Federal Government, and that is to
allow a reasonable time, as it says in the bill, for comment. Then it says,
158
we shall, after considering? the comments, promulgate the regulations _
establishing the standards.
Now, if the committee thinks we have to liave some kind of a time
limitation specilied in the statute, we would be glad to work with you
on that. But I think you can rely upon the Secretary to try to provide
a balance between giving the people a reasonable period of time in
wliich to connnent and, on the other hand, trying to make these stand-
ards effective as rapidly as possible in order to protect the public
interest.
Senator SroNO. Thank you.
Senator Randolph. Senator Cooper?
Senator Cooper. I am sure I won't take long. But I want to pursue
the line of inquiry that Senator Muskie opened, and I hope I don't
^confuse the issues.
I v,-ant to speak first to the ambient air quality standards. I want
to set aside for a moment the emission standards. As I understand it,
there are two approaches. The Muskie or this committee's approach
is to develop r^igional air quality standards as opposed to national air
quality standards.
You proposed to immediately or as quickly as possible establish
national ambient air quality standards, and let me say that I think
that proposal has value. If you wait until every region has established
standards, it could be a very long time the kind of delay that Senator
Randolph spoke of.
I suppose by establishing national air quality standards, you estab-
lish what might be called a level below Avhich no region in the country
could pollute the air ; is that correct ?
Mr. Vbnemax. That would be correct. But I think you have to bear
in mind, Senator, that the establishment of these standards M'ould be
pursuant to the national air quality criteria, so that your criteria are
the basis by which you would establish the standards.
Senator Cooper. You have a situation in which the standards Avould
control perhaps the area in the country which is the worst polluted.
There might be other areas in the country where higher standards
could be established ; is that correct ?
Mr. Veneman. There could be other areas with better air quality,
because of stricter implementation plans.
Senator Cooper. Why wouldn't it be possible to accept the proposal
of the administration to establish immediately, or as quickly as possi-
ble, national ambient air quality standards to place a control on pollu-
tion all over the country, but at the same time, why couldn't we retain
the procedure in existence — not just saying they may do this, but pro-
viding the criteria, so that the regions can make the standards, imple-
menting them with public hearings. Thus you would enable every
region in the country to have the opportunity to provide more efficient
and higher ambient air quality standards ?
If you preserve the procedure in existence, I think you could ac-
complish both aims; you could have immediately a standard Mhicb
would protect the country to some degree, and a very high degree, and
at the time assist in other areas, to look at their own situation and
circumstances and develop higher quality standards of that is
desirable.
Mr. Veneman. I think. Senator Cooper, this might erode the con-
cept of having the national air quality standards in the first place.
159
If you vrere trying to set uj^ — I shouldn't use tlie word "minimum,"
because the standards tliat are adopted are tough enougli standards.
I asked Dr. Middleton, trying to put this thing in perspective a
little bit, to give me an example so that maybe we can make it clear.
For example, in the criteria that were established for sulphur oxides,
the minimum identifiable human health effect occurs at a level of 0.04
part per million.
Now, in establishing a national air quality standard, it would be
below that. It would not be above that.
Now, what we are suggesting is that you do not set standards just
at the point of minimum impact or effect upon human health. They
have to be below it. We are suggesting that if a State or an area
within a State, even in the intrastate regions, wants to reduce that
even below the national standard, they would have the prerogative.
Senator Cooper. What I am proposing is the suggestion, to the
proposition you make, that as quickly as possible to establish national
standards but maintain the current procedures. In effect, the regions
would have the procedures, as we have them in the committee bill, to
effect higher quality air standards. I think you say "they may." Our
bill, in effect say they "shall" if the conditions require it.
]Mr. Veneman. Well, Senator, let me toss one out, having spent
several Aveeks with the Ways and Means Committee discussing
welfare reform, and this is not too much different.
In the concept where you are establishing a national minimum
standard and then permitting the States to supplement, what if we
were to build in a maintenance of effort provision. Nov,', I am sure
my attorneys and administrators would be shaken up about that, but
what if we were to say that any State or locality that is above the
national minimum standards that were adopted would not be per-
mitted to go below what they have presently in effect ?
Senator Cooper. Well, I think I have made my case, and I think
we can argue it in the committee. But I make the same proposition
to emission standards and the agents that pollute the air. We can
accept your proposition of the national emission standards, but at
the same time provide the regions, if they desire, to adopt higher
standards.
One other question that I will pose, I notice some place in your state-
ment, I think, you said that if the region or an area had a certain
air quality which might be higher than other areas of the country,
that tliat would be maintained. It could not be degraded; is that
correct ?
Mr. Veneman. Yes. We pointed out we did not want deteriora-
tion of the air in those areas that may be below what the standard
is at the present time.
Senator Muskie. Senator Cooper, may I interject at this point?
Senator Cooper. Yes.
Senator Mfskie. We always regard a criteria as, in a sense, a stand-
ard. A criteria identifies the health and welfare effect of pollutants.
This is factual. It has no relationship to what may be attainable in
a given community. This should be the ultimate.
If you establish your criteria scientifically, you ought to be able to
move in the direction of just background quantities of pollutant. That is
what criteria are. This is why we want them published, so that the
160
public would know what tlie best scientific brains in the country ou2:ht
to know in terms of eliminating possible dilatory effects upon health
and welfare.
You ha\'o repealed that section as a mandatory requirement. Now, a
standard — in the sense we understand a standard — ^doesn't it identify
effects that ought to be pretty well understood by the public? And
from there, the application of the knowledge is in terms of what is
achievable, I take it ?
Tlie standard is something di fie rent from the criteria; isn't it?
Mr. Veneman. The criteria are the basis upon which you establish
the standard.
Now, getting back to the sulfur oxide example, the criteria is now
0.04 parts per million. If you were to adopt a standard which has to he
below that — well, that is the minimum at wliich effects upon the health
of a 'human being occur, the 0.04. That is the minimum level. So you
would establish a standard wdiich would he below that.
Senator Muskie. How does that differ from a criterion? What else
is there of the standard? You have said they are the same at a point.
\\niat else is there in a standard that differs from this? If you say on
this point it is health effects, it is identical with criteria, but what does
a standard establish in addition I
Mr. Veneman. Your point has something to do with the environ-
ment. As well as the health aspect, there are esthetic, economic, and
other aspects. You may want to take other things into consideration in
your standards.
Senator Muskie. "Standard" is the word used in the 1967 act. Ac-
cording to Dr. Middleton, standard is the way for implementing the
criteria or any different level of achievement that may be possible.
Let me quote Dr. Middleton's testimony :
Air quality criteria are an expression of tlie scientific knowledge of the rela-
tionship between various concentrations of iwllutants in the air and their adverse
effects on man, animals, vegetation, materials, visibility, and so on. Air quality
criteria can and should be used in developing air quality standards. Criteria and
standards are not synonymous. Air quality criteria are descriptive ; that is, they
describe the effects that can be expected to occur whenever and wherever the
ambient air level of a pollutant reaches or exceeds a specific figure for a specific
time i>eriod.
That is what the 1967 act required to be published, so that the public
would know these affects.
Further —
Air quality standards are prescriptive. They prescribe pollutant levels that
cannot legally be exceeded during a specific time in a specific geographic area.
Is that what you are talking about ?
Mr. Johnson. That is right.
iMr. Veneman. We can also let Dr. Middleton respond, because
I think those are his quotes.
Dr. Middleton. Senator Muskie, I believe that is wdiat all of us
have been trying to tell you again.
Senator Muskie. With different spokesmen, it didn't come through
as clearly.
Mr. Veneman. We will start over.
Senator Muskie. I am sorry. Senator Cooper.
Senator Cooper. I am finished.
[ 161
Senator Muskie. I have used up my time for 3 days. Senator
Eagleton ?
Senator Eagleton. I have just one question now, but I will have an
entire series of questions that in the interest of time I will submit to
you later in writing.
(Included in questions from Senator Muskie to Secretary Finch.
Seep. 193.)
But I would like to ask this one basic question with respect to S. 3466,
the administration bill. As I read sections 107 and 108, contained on
pages 9 through 16 of the administration bill — it appears to be a pre-
scription for another 18-month delay. We would tragically, in my
judgment, be turning the clock back to zero and starting all over again.
Here we are now, in point of time, close to the end of the 3-year
startup period of the 1967 act. As I read 107 and 108, we would be
starting all over again and going into another 18-month period.
Apparently, you try to save that from happening. As I read section
10 on page 21 you are theoretically going to try to maintain the pres-
sure of the old air quality procedures of the 1967 act until the State
has succeL-sfully met the pressures of the new procedure.
I will make this observation. In point affect, this effort would surely
fail. It would fail because as long as you keep the old procedures —
the 1967 act — in a sort of limbo on the statute books, the bureaucracy
will concentrate their attention on the news procedures. I think the
old ones would be largely ignored.
My point is this. You may be. perhaps inadvertently, creating a
whole new mechanism and a whole new time delay period for the issu-
ance and the promulgation of air quality procedures. The net effect of
this being that here, in 1970, after we have been laboring under the 1967
act for 3 years and are now almost at the point where plans have been
established at the local regions, including my region of St. Louis, and
where implementation of those plans are now forthcoming, we are about
to scrap all of those plans and place them in suspended animation and
start off on another 18-month long process. So, by the year 1972, we
will be back here where we are today with very little having been ac-
complished in the interim.
Mr. Veneman. Well, Senator, I just can't concur. No. 1, we don't
anticipate taking the pressure off the provisions of the 1967 act.
If we are going to take this attitude, we would never change any-
thing. You wouldn't change any legislation, if that were to follow.
This is in bill form. It is still speculative. NAPCA isn't going to slow
down the implementation of the current law.
Senator Eagleton. You recommend that S. 3466 should become law.
If we adopted it without changing one letter or one comma, the present
procedures would go into limbo for 18 months, while the new ones are
being cranked up.
I have added up the various time periods that are contemplated under
sections 107 and 108 of the new bill.
Mr. Saperstein. The existing plan would continue to be effective
until we issued national standards— ambient air quality standards —
and the particular State implemented those standards by the adoption
of a plan which provided emission standards and a means of
enforcement.
162
Until this happens the existing standards, which would be both the
ambient air quality standards and the emission standards, would
continue to be effective.
Now, I think, Senator, this is a problem that you have, as the Under
Secretaiy pointed out, wliencver you have any new legisltttion. We have
it all the time in our grant-in-aid legislation where people say you are
going to delay the salutory action that individuals have taken now to
build ncAv hospitals or to establish water pollution control plans, and
soon.
If you propose legislation which would encourage them to act by
providing grants, some are concerned they will then wait until the
grants are eifective.
I think the same thing may be true here, I think you have to balance
the two considerations. As the Under Secretary says, you would never
change the legislation if you were to adopt these approaches.
Senator Eagleton. Let me comment on that. I lind that interesting
because Dr. Egeberg of your Department — HEW — was in to see me
last week. Dr. Egeberg asked me to consider delaying any new consid-
eration on population control, because if we considered new legislation,
it would delay the ongx)ing thrust and hamper the eflectiyeness of their
existing programs. They asked us to postpone consideration of any new
legislation.
Mr. Veneman. Our Department and the administration have a
family population proposal on the Hill right now.
Senator Eagleton. Yes, that is the famous midnight bill that was
submitted to Congress the night before our public hearings.
Mr. Veneman. We are advocating changes.
Senator Eagleton. I would call them titular changes— I come from a
rural State.
The point I am trying to make is a very impoi-tant one. Wiiiie you
are cranking up your new^ national standards during what I add up to
be a possible 18-month period — perhaps my mathematics are wrong, as
Senator Spong thinks it is longer because it is opened-ended ^' "^ * the
whole tlirust, focus, and effort on both the national and regional basis
will be on what the news standards are going to be.
Time and again you will find industry — and I believe you will find
it in my area of St. Louis, for example, Missouri Portland Cement,
National Lead, Monsanto Chemical and other polluters in the St. Louis
area will say, "Look, w^e are going to have a new ball game within the
next few months. Give us more time." The enforcement agencies will
fall for it, and with your proposal, I don't think we will be one iota
farther along than we are here today in 1970.
Mr. Veneman. I think there are two or three things that are mis-
leading in that respect. First of all, I don't see how it can be an 18-
month period. You have got to take into consideration that we are not
going to slow down on the 1967 act. These things are moving ahead.
What we are going to do is really provide for a procedure where,
within 9 months, implementation plans would have to be submitted.
We are going to provide for a procedure where we are not going to
wait for regions to be designated, but where plans will be adopted
throughout the States and territories at one time. We are going to
do it at once.
163
I tliink we are expediting rather than delaying. We are not slowing
any procedure down in the 1967 act, and wo are expediting the overall
procedure. We are going to be better off with the proposal we
submitted.
Senator Eagleton. I yield to Senator Spong.
Senator Spong. I think 20 States have submitted their standards,
and standards have been approved for Xew Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
Delaware. You are talking m tenns of moving ahead rapidly and con-
tinuing under the 1967 act.
Xow, here are States that submitted their standards in October of
1969, going forward to January of 1970, and only three States
approved.
If what you say represents your present plan for this interim period,
am I to take it that you intend to act upon all of these almost
immediately ?
yiv. Veneman. As I stipulated at the opening of my statement in
response to Senator Randolph, we anticipated that 40 would be estab-
lished by June 30 of this year and 57 would be in by September.
Senator Spong. I am speaking of State plans. Let me say to you that
I share some of Senator Eagleton's concern, because it has been neces-
sary in other instances of pollution, not specifically air pollution, for
the State to go back and jDass new laws, as in my own State, in recent
sessions of the general assembly. Immediately when it was learned
there would be a new ball game, an attitude developed to wait and see
what the national standards are going to be.
I want to know, in terms of these 20 States, whether there will be an
immediate review of ^vhat they ha'\'e submitted and if the 1967 act
will remain in effect until we have new legislation, if it is contem-
plated that you will act on those, as well as designate additional regions.
Mr. Johnson. The answer is yes to both of those. Senator Spong. I
think what we need to understand is that we did recognize that the
procedure that we now have is a little bit long in coming to fruition in
terms of actually getting implementation plans going. We would, by
the procedure in the administration bill, expand this beyond a region-
by-region operation, such as 57 by September, and we would require the
States to develop all of their regions by the end of the time, I think
indicated as a 9-month period, after national ambient air quality stand-
ards are set.
This gives you, then, a speedup in covering the entire Nation, not
just the 57 regions, but the total country in terms of air quality con-
trol and the plans they would have to adopt. This does speed up, in
many respects, the current procedure that we have.
Senator Spong. Thank you.
Senator Eagleton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dole. Senator, I have just a couple of questions. First of all,
there has been something said about public hearings. Now, as I read the
administration bill, there are public hearings provided at the time
and implementation of the State plan; is that correct, the only differ-
ence being on the formulation of standards? Then you would have
comments and, of course, they can be comments by any interested party,
as I read that section of the act.
Mr. Veneman. That is correct. Senator. In setting the national air
quality standards for ambient air, the bill would not provide for pub-
164
lie ]ieanno:s, per se. It would provide for the piibliration of tlie stand-
ards ill the Federal Register with a reasonable length of time for
connnent.
I just don't see, administratively, from any practical standpoint, how
we can run around this country and hold public hearings on national
air quality standards. I just don't think it is a practical thing to do if
we want to solve the problems confronting this Nation.
Senator Dole. But it is practical when it reaches the State level, and
this is Avhere it is provided for.
Mr, Veneman". Right. When you get to that point, then you have
public hearings.
Senator Boogs. The State would have hearings on the question of
emissions from a certain source; is that correct?
Mr. Venemax. Right.
Senator Boggs. In other words, a cement plant near Wilmington,
Del., might have to have to meet more rigid requirements than a cement
plant in a rural area of Missouri in order that the area's air meets the
natiouiil air quality standards. There wouldn't be any comparison in
the emission levels each would have to achieve ; is that right ?
Mr. Vexeinian. Unless it is in excess of national standards.
Senator Boggs. As the air in Delaware or any industrial area might
be alrea^dy loaded up with pollutants, a plant in a rural county in
Missouri mi^rht be allowed to emit a whole lot of things that'3'ou
couldn't emit in Delaware; that would be the difference; wouldn't it?
Mr. Vexeman. I think that there would be different judgmental
factors thatgo in. I think you have to recognize there would be na-
tional emission standards for certain stationary facilities, as defined
in the bill. It wouldn't be all of them.
_ Senator Boggs. Therefore, there wouldn't be any uniform restric-
tions on emitters under the national air quality standards. Their emis-
sion levels would depend on their location in the country?
Mr. Veneman. That is true as to old plants, particularly, unless they
emitted extremely hazardous pollutants. The old ones would all be
controlled by the Stat^. They would implement and enforce.
Senator Dole. I think that is a good point. In other words, we are
not depriving the public of a right to be heard. We are trying to do it
in a time that has some meaning and when it has some im]:)act. And you
indicate that the standards are different in Kansas than they are in
California, or at least the problems are different in reference to air
pollution and water.
So it might serve some function to have a national public hearing,
but I am not certain it could be any great benefit. But I see a reason for
it if it IS a regional or State concept at the time the plan is
implemented.
Mr. Veneman, That is provided for.
Senator Dole, Is this really— and I know the word "transition"
worries my colleagues on the left, as we have been going through one
now— but is there any substance to the concern expressed by the Sena-
tor from Virginia and the Senator from Missouri? Are we, in effect
pyramiding programs or permitting some delay in what might be an
on,<Toin£r in-ogram now?
Mr. Veneman. No; and that is the point I was attempting to make.
On page 21, that Senator Eagleton referred to, we provide in section 10
165
that eveiTthin<r would stay in effect that was done prior to the enact-
ment of this bill.
Senator Dole. At least I can understand the concern. Even though
it is not effective until these two things happen in section 10, what
would be the practical effect on someone, say, in St. Louis? Would they
be permitted to wait until this Act became effective, or would they be
required to proceed under the present law ?
Mr. Vexeman, If they are violating any laws, they would be sub-
jected to the penalties or requirements under the existing law. A\'lien-
ever you supersede one piece of legislation with another, you just don't
turn oft' the clock when you introduce a bill. The clock is turned off
when it is enacted.
Senator Dole. I think it will make it clear, though, but I think he
does have a real concern.
I have a question in concern to Federal enforcement. It seems to me
that section 103 would give the Secretary of HEW almost mtermina-
ble discretion on whether or not you should proceed against a violator.
It says that first of all he allows a reasonable time. Then it says the
remedial action should be taken in not less than 60 days.
It seems to me you ought to take out the "less" and put in "not more
than 60 days." Then you say he may request the Attorney General to
bring suit,' and it seems the word ^"will" should be inserted in that
section.
The point is that it doesn't seem to be moving in the direction of
really abating pollution, if that is necessary, to be done very quickly,
because of all of the time lag between the violation and the charge.
Why not provide an injunctive process immediately and then let the
violator make the corrections and have the injunction dissolved after
the abatement procedures have been filed on ?
Mr. Vexeman. Well, it is a matter of procedure, and I thiiik the
point you are making has a great deal of merit. Mr. Saperstein was
deeply involved in trying to get together on the enforcement procedure.
I think I will let him speak to this particular section of the bill.
Mr. Saperstoix. Senator, I think it is true that if we change the
provisions the way you suggested, we could expedite enforcement very
greatlv.
Xow, I want to point out that the existing law's provision under
which, if there is an imminent danger to health, we can get into court
inimediatelv and get an injunction, would still be in the law.
Senator Dole. That is not repealed ?
Mr. Sapeksteix. No, sir; that is not repealed. That is still retained.
Now, I think there is a clioice to he made. You can set up a procedure
where you hold a hearing and then issue an order and the polluter is
required to comply with that order immediately. He must take the
initiative to go to "court. If he doesn't go to court, the penalties apply
immediately.
Or you could provide that we hold the hearing and issue an order
which is not effective until we go to court.
Now, I think you will notice in our bill, when we go to court, the
court may assess the penalty back to the date when we ordered the
polluter to comply with the order. So he is taking a risk if he continues
to pollute.
I think I would also like to call attention to the fact that we have
proceeded on the assumption that the States are going to have to have
166
inipleiiiention plans and we would act only if the State is not carrying
out its implcniention plan. Ordinarily, we would assume the State
would continue to implement the standards and would proceed against
the violators as expeditiously as they are supposed to.
Senator Dole. In other words, the Federal enforcement would be
second ; is that right ?
Mr. Saperstein. That is right.
Senator Dole. In the plan submitted by the State would be pro-
visions with reference to enforcement, as I read the bill ?
Mr. Saperstein. Right.
Senator Dole. Maybe that would explain it. But it appears to me
that if there were a case — and certainly we don't want to harass who
may be unintentionally at fault — but if there were a case and the
Secretary had to become involved because there was no action taken at
the State level, then it would seem to me he should have the authority
to immediately issue some type of cease-and-desist order to protect
the public and then ])roceed with the hearing, and, if necessary, then
go on to court procedure.
But the only question I raise — maybe I just haven't studied it care-
fully enough — but it says, for example, on page 20, "The remedial
action must be taken in a time not less than 60 days, in which such
person must take such action." In other words, are they permitted to
continue whatever they might be doing, a violation for 60 days before
they are required to act?
]Mr. Vexemax. Well, it gives them that period of time to take
remedial action. I think, actually, this enforcement section was pat-
terned after the enforcement section in the water pollution control bill.
Senator.
Senator Dole. It may satisfy, particularly where you assess the
penalty and it is retroactive to the date the order is made. It is one I
think that might deserve some study, and I know it is difficult to
protect the interest of the public and not be in a position of harassing
those w^ho might be attempting to comply and might not be able to
do so.
Mr. Saperstein. I think you must balance the interests. "We would
be glad to work \Ath. the committee in trying to work this out. It was
our judgment this w-as the best way to proceed at this time, to follow
the jxTttern in the water pollution control bill rather than proceed the
other way.
Senator Dole. And I think the conference has potential and you
might eliminate a lot of court action in conference on a friendly basis,
which would save costs and other problems. You are not suggesting
we appoint a noise administrator ; is that right ? You are suggesting we
already have a cabinet level
Mr. Veneman. I recommended in the Secretary's testimony this
ttt'tV"^ ^^^^^ ^^^ '^°^ ^^^ "P ^^^ °^^® °^ "°^^^ "^ ^^ Dei^artment of
JiP.W as reconnnendod, as a statutory provision. But I also certainly
recognize the environmental problem caused and created by the noise
pollution. I also recognize the health factors that are involved, and that
we have a responsibility in HEW in this particular area.
Senator Dole. The recognition is there. You have alreadv an on-
going program concerned with this problem and there wouldn't '
possibly oe any need for any separate agency.
167
Mr. Veneman. Well, we have Mr. Cohen, who will be available this
afternoon, and who has snbmitted testimony, w^io has indicated he
has recognized the need. We just don't feel it is necessary to set up an
office of 'Mioise" in the Department of HEW which is in line with this
office at the present time.
Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairmari.
Senator Muskie. I have just one question I would like to ask at
this point on another subject. I am reading from the testimony :
I turn now to the area of motor vehicle pollution control. The establishment
and enforcement of national emission standards for new motor vehicles con-
stitute the cornerstone of our program. The Administration bill would improve
our enforcement activity in three principal ways: (1) by authorizing assembly
line testing of new motor vehicles ; (2) by providing for revocation of certificates
of conformity Avhen such testing shows that new vehicles do not meet the stand-
ards ; and (3) by prohibiting importation of all motor vehicles that are not
equipped to comply with the standards.
"Under the existing act, testing of prototypes in advance of actual production
is the principal means of determining whether new motor vehicles will comply
with the standards."
That is not the way I read the existing act :
Upon application of the manufacturer, the Secretary shall test, or require to be
tested, in such manner as he deems appropriate, any new motor vehicle or new
motor vehicle engine submitted by such manufacturer to determine whether such
vehicle or engine conforms with the regulations prescribed under Section 202 of
this title. If such vehicle or engine conforms to such regulations the Secretary
shall issue a certificate of conformity, upon such terms and for usch i>eriod not
less than one year, as he may prescribe.
As I read it, you do this now.
Mr. Veneman. Well, I will turn that over to Dr. Middleton, Mr.
Chairman. We went through a lengthy discussion on this yesterday
before Chairman Rogers' subconunittee.
Senator Muskie. Let me add that we went into a considerable dis-
cussion wlien the law was written as to whether we ought to put the
standard in the law, whether we should give sufficient authority to the
Secretary to do the job, and we wrote the law with the intention of
giving the Secretary eveiy authority he could conceivably need.
Dr. ]MiDDLET0N. Perhaps your statement would make mine shorter.
The problem that you pose is a real one and the reason we test pro-
totypes is ba.sed on the fact that we need to test vehicles in advance
of their production for sale.
Senator Muskie. But the law doesn't say you must test prototypes
and nothing else.
Dr. Middleton. But the practice of giving a certificate in order
that manufacture takes place requires that there must be an earlier
determination of the suitability of such vehicles for sale purposes. The
law also says that the vehicles shall be manufactured in substantially
the same way or of substantially the same material. I don't remember
the exact words.
What we are learning through this system is that the prototypes,
while they meet the standards — I am advised by the Assistant General
Counsel it is the same construction — what we are finding is that there
apparently is a difference in the quality control of such vehicles.
Senator Muskie. "Wliat I am saying is that as I read the language
of the 1967 act, you have got the authority.
168
Dr. MiDDLETON. It is possible that that interpretation could be made.
We are saying that if it would be clearly made, there would be no
question about it.
Senator Muskie. Let me read it again :
Upon application of the manufacturer, the Secretary shall test, or require to
be tested, in such manner as he deems appropriate.
That seems clear.
Mr. Saperstein. We are not disagreeing with you, Senator. We are
just not having a meeting of the minds because what I think you are
talking about is the production-line vehicle and what Dr. Middleton
is talking about is the fact that we test a prototype and that the
vehicles
Senator Muskie. I am not complaining about how you do it.
Mr. Saperstein. And that the vehicles that come off the production
line later, although they are of substantially the same construction,
do not test out satisfactorily. And we do not think the existing legis-
lation is clear on the point that we may revoke a certificate when the
producion line vehicle is of substantially the same construction as the
prototype that we tested earlier.
Senator Muskie. The law says, "shall issue a certificate of con-
formity, upon such terms as he may prescribe."
You are able to spell out the terms you think you are able to describe
in this testimony, "\¥liy can't you do this with the certificate?
JNIr. Saperstein. Having been in the business of drafting legislation
for the past 25 years, I realize that every time we draft legislation
we try to do the job successfully, but sometimes we don't succeed.
In this case, I think you have to read the statement you are quoting
along with the next subsection, which says that if the vehicle is of
the same constimction as the prototype, it is deemed to comply with the
regulations.
Now, that is the difficulty, Senator, and I would like to clarify
the law. Certainly we would like to administer it the way you are
suggesting. However, we would like to make it clear that we may
test the vehicles as they come off the production line. The automobile
manufacturers know what the situation is, and we don't want a
series of law suits that drag on for years.
Senator Muskie, The word "prototype" doesn't appear in the statute.
Mr. Saperstein. No, but it says they are to submit something for
us to test; and the whole theory was that they would do this in advance
of the production of the vehicles so that they wouldn't have to wait
to find out as these vehicles came off the production line, whether they
would comply.
Senator Muskie. You say that the law gives the manufacturer the
prerogative of telling you what vehicles yon should test?
Mr. Saperstein. That is a different issue. Senator.
Senator Muskie. No. You are saying that they submit a prototype
and you test it, and you can't test anything more.
Mr. Saperstein. We may test other vehicles. Senator, but as we
interpret the law, it is the fact that other vehicles which come off the
production line don't perform as well as even thougli they are sub-
stantially of the same construction as the vehicle they submitted
for purposes of getting this certificate.
169
Senator Muskie. What you are saying is that the vehicle submitted
is tlie only one you can test 'i
Mr. Sapersteix. We could require them to submit another one.
Senator Muskie. Couldn't j'ou require them to submit the whole
assembly line ? Can't you require them to do so (
Mr. Saperstein. I don't think so.
Senator Muskie [reading] :
Upon application of the manufacturer, the vSecretary shall test or require ro
be tested as he deems appropriate.
Mr. Veneman. Mr. Chairman, may I point out that these regula-
tions that were applied to section 206 were adopted during the previous
administration, and we are doing our very best to straighten it out.
Senator ]SIuskie. Then change it, ]Mr. Secretary. Don't take time
to delay the legislative process. You won an election in Xovember
of 1968. You have the authority to change it.
Mr. Sapersteix. We have got to interpret the law as we see it, and
we have serious doubt that we can do what you are saying. Now,
lawyers can disagree on this, but that is the problem.
Senator Muskie. If this language, "as he deems appropriate," doesn't
give you enough authority, then I guess we are going to have to spell
it out, comma by comma, to satisfy you. We are going to be writing
awfully long law, and it is going to take an awfully long time.
Mr. Sapersteix. All I am suggesting is that subsection (b) has
language which is not consistent with the lang-uage you are quoting,
and v;e have to read both subsections together.
Senator Muskie. All I can say is that this is a much slower process
in the interpretation. As I read the language, you have the authority
to do exactly what you are proposing. But I guess I can't force that
interpretation upon you.
Senator Rax^dolph. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important for us
to realize that there is a responsibility on the Secretary, and on the
administration, to draft and forward to the Hill legislation on which
this committee would work its will. And there is a responsibility also
on the members of this subcommittee and on the full committee to
develop legislation within our own jurisdiction, with the cooperation
of the executive establishment.
I think sometimes we do allow those downtown, and this is no criti-
cism of the agencies, to draft the legislation, forward it here, and then,
in a sense, feel that we should take it and send it with little refinement
to the Senate floor.
Our responsibility goes much deeper than that, as you well realize,
yir. Under Secretary.
Mr. Vexemax. I fully appreciate that responsibility. Senator.
Senator Raxdolpit. On the other hand, there can be the cooperative
effort which, I feel sure, all of us prefer.
Now, as you recall, Mr. Veneman, our subcommittee was largely
responsible for section 104 in the Air Quality Act of 1967. Section
]0o was a feature of the measure from its inception, but there was
a reason why I moved forward, perhaps with a certain amount of per-
sonal leadership, in reference to the inclusion of section 104.
I did so because I realize that we needed to define a legal basis for
supporting projects involving construction and installation of pollu-
170
tion control equipment on private property for the purpose of testing.
This was one reason.
Tliere should be cooperation and partnership between government
and industry. Above all, however, pollution control technology must be
expanded.
Industrial pLants often are the best possible sites for making the
realistic tests and evaluations of the economic and technological
feasibility of processes for the control of pollution problems such as
sulfur oxides, and others. "Would you agree with that?
Mr. Vexeman. I would agree. It is my understanding that section
101 remains in the act. We certainly recognize the desirability of that
particular provision.
Senator Randolph. Thank you very much. There was another rea-
son, ))erhaps as important as the one I have just given, for providing
the funds that would be available until expended. I think that in
research and development we have to provide that flexibility.
It is oftentimes necessary in the planning and scheduling of re-
search and development and demonstration projects that they extend
beyond the end of a fiscal year. Is this not right ?
Mr. Veneman. Yes, certain research grants do.
Senator Randolph. That is correct. As you know, I represent a coal
State where huge tonnages of bituminous coal are produced and
marketed. But most of it is not low in sulfur content.
So I was wondering, naturally, about the domestic low-sulfur fuel
requirement as we seek to effectuate air pollution control. I wanted
others to join me in thinking in terms of reduction in the sulfur oxide
concentration due to the burning and combustion of fuels with high
sulfur content.
It was obvious that we needed new and certainly we need additional
technolog^^ to accomplish any substantial amount of reduction in sul-
fur oxide concentrations.
I am speaking in some detail on this matter because I believe the
Senators from the respective States have responsibilities in connection
with their industries and those working witliin them. Wlien the Depart-
ment of HEW published the sulphur oxides criteria, there was very
little technological backup. I am not sure wdiether or not you agree
with that.
Mr. Vexemax. I am not in a position to speak.
Mr. Randolph. Well, certain people here can address that subject,
and that is why I am going to direct my questions to Dr. Middleton,
and those who join him here.
Senator Coope,r. Would the gentleman yield a moment?
Senator Raxdolph. I yield.
Senator Cooper. I am glad to see you are pursuing that line of
inquiry and wish to be associated with it, or considering the problems
which are inherent in the state of the art of planning techniques with
relation to certain fuels. I think the funds which have been authorized
are, or at least a substantial amount of those funds, should be made
available for research.
Senator Randolph. I thank you. Senator Cooper. We do know
that sufficient quantities of domestic low-sulfur coal will not be
available to meet the requirements of air pollution control. In the
first place, it is metallurgical coal needed in steelmaking. The same
171
problem relates to domestic residual oil. Without a reduction in
sulphur oxides, the concentrations of them will be hannful. But do
we have technology to achieve the reduction ? Dr. Middleton, I know,
has given very much attention to this.
Now, I will try to be as brief as possible, but still cover the ground.
How far toward development of technically and economically feasible
sulphur oxide technology nas tnis seccion iO-± reseaicii, anu research
in general, progressed ^
Dr. Middleton. I think we have made substantial progress. Senator
Randolph, in identifying the systems that must be employed to reduce
the sulphur oxides. I would have to agree with your earlier statement
that the control technologies available to abate and control sulphur
oxides are not all they should be. And it is true that the use of section
104 has the accent on the problems, such as the cost sharing with
industry in an R. & D. development system that we are presently
demonstrating, for example, with the Tennessee Valley Authority in
a dry limestone injection system, which we expect to complete in about
a year.
We are setting up a program with wet limestone scrubbing to work
out what are better known as bugs in the systems which are available
from certain commercial organizations.
Not only are we concerned with these specific it^ms, but we are
presently looking at three others in a cost-sharing arrangement and
are dealing now with the General Counsel's office on business arrange-
ments so we can enter into contracts to install demonstration systems.
Further, I would say we are now limiting our sulphur oxide research
to stack gas cleaning but, as you earlier recognized, also accenting
the need for cleaner fuel. Today only about 8 percent of the coal used
by utilities has a sufficiently low level of sulfur to permit their use,
based on sulfur content alone.
We have looked at some 100 utility coals, coals used by the power
generating companies, and have learned that at least IT percent are
cleanable and can be used after they have been cleaned. So we are
now in the process of developing a system. Senator Randolph, which
would permit us to remove pyritic sulfur from coals that contain
more than 1 percent sulfur.
Senator Randolph. When could we reasonably expect feasible sul-
fur removal or reduction devices to be available to be used by our
electric generating plants to help meet the ambient air quality stand-
ards in the various areas of the country where the standards have
already been invoked ?
Dr. Middleton. Depending on the location of the powerplant and
the economy of the area, we may already be able to use a system dem-
onstrated by a private company, such as Monsanto.
Through improvements in the combustion engineering wet lime-
stone process; that may be used if those companies guarantee
performance.
The dry limestone injection, which we call a throwaway process,
would mean its use is limited to existing powerplants, and we would
not recommend its use in a new plant. Finishing investigative work
in TVA in this next year would mean it probably could be used m
commercial applications in about 2 years from then.
So a specific answer is about 1973. There would be no reason for
not having this system available for certain utility plants.
43-166 — 7(^— pt. 1< '12,
172
Senator Randolph. "Well, I think your answer is very specific and,
in a sense, it is somewhat comforting. Naturally we realize that you
must base it on expectation to grow out of experimentation and pilot
projects. Is that right?
Dr. MmDLETON. Tliat is right. It may be comforting, but we do not
yet have available for use the high-efficiency control systems required,
and we must work toward them.
Senator Ranix>lph. But it is gratifying to know that you look
toward something with a reasonable degree of hopefulness. We have
followed with intense interest the early history of section 104 develop-
ments. I insisted on section 104 and Senator Cooper supported it with
vigor, as did other members of our committee, including our
distinguished subcommittee chaimian.
As we continue research and development efforts, such as you have
discussed, we are thinking of the sulfur oxide emission control problem.
The questions that continue to arise in my mind relate to the adequacy
of the methods to offset the increased emission estimated to occur in
the future.
I have some figures — I am not sure that they are correct — but we
believe that emissions of sulfur oxides will be an estimated 37 million
tons in 1970. Is this correct ?
Dr. MiDDLETON. Yes, Senator.
( Figures referred to and later supplied follow :)
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL SULFUR DIOXIDE POLLUTION WITHOUT ABATEMENT— UNITED STATES »
Annual emissions of sulfur dioxide
1967 1970 1980 1990 200(
Powerplant operation (coal and oil) 15.0 20.0 41.1 62 94.6
Other combustion of coal __ 5.1 4.8 4.0 3 1 1.6
Other combustion of petroleum products. 2.8 3 4 3.9 4.3 5.1
Smelting of metallic ores 3.8 4.0 5.3 7.1 9.6
Petroleum refinery operation--. 2.1 2.4 4.0 6.5 10.5
Miscellaneous sources 2 2.0 2.0 2.6 3.4 4.5
Total - 30.8 36.6 60.9 86.4 125.8,
> February 1970 estimates by National Air Pollution Control Administration.
2 Includes coke processing, sulfuric acid plants, coal refuse banks, refuse incineration, and pulp and paper I
manufacturing. '
Senator Randolph. And that they are expected to increase to about
65 million tons by 1990; in the power industry alone. Is that right?
Dr. MiDDLETON. Yes.
Senator Randolph. This causes us to realize the enormity of the
problem which we face, and I think it is important that we insert in
the record of this hearing, the material of Paul Spaite and Robert
Hangebranck, of NAPCA, on this particular subject. Do you think
that would be helpful ?
Dr. MiDDLETON, I think it would be helpful to have the informa-
tion produced and provided for the record.
(The information later furnished follows :)
Pollution From Combustion of Fossil Fuexs
(By Paul "W. Spaite and Robert P. Hangebrauck, Bureau of Engineering and
Physical Science)
INTRODUCTION
About half the air pollution from industrial and commercial activities is
produced by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas. Currently, emissions of
fly ash, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides by these fossil-fuel-burning sources
come to about 45 million tons per year in the United States, and consumption
173
of fossil fuels is doubling every 25 years. At predicted rates of increased con-
sumption, in 30 years total emissions could be well over 130 million tons per year.
These emissions originate in power plants, industrial boilers, and smaller installa-
tions used for commercial and residential heating. Electric power production,
which is the largest and fastest growing category, is doubling every 8 to 10 years.
Today, our ability to control pollution from fossil-fuel-burning sources is very
limited. Much of the fly ash from combustion can be collected by available
hardware, but methods for effective control of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and
very small particulates need greatly increased research and development to
I provide methods that can contain the problem without excessive impact on our
economy.
If we assume that the work we are doing now to develop and apply control
methods is successful, overall amounts of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxide
emissions can be held to relatively modest increases over present levels, instead
of increasing by a factor of five as seems probable otherwise. Although it is
apparent that the cost of controlling pollution will be high, (1) the benefits to be
gained in reducing the impact on the environment will be substantial. The cost of
economic damage to vegetation and materials is estimated at billions of dollars
per year at current emission levels. Increases of the magnitude that are fore-
seen without controls would seem to be intolerable. Even with controls increases
in emissions will be significant, e.g., SO2 emissions from the power industry are
expected to increase with controls by an estimated 2 to 3 times by the year 2000.
Clearly, air pollution from fossil fuel combustion is a national problem of great
importance, and every avenue of attack to bring about additional controls
should be vigorously pursued.
THE NATUEE OF THE PROBLEM
The potential for damage to health and property, the rate at which emissions
are increasing, and the long lead time necessary to develop and apply air pollution
control technology make it impertive that we act now. Dealing with the overall
problem of controlling air pollution is complicated by the necessity of simul-
taneously coping with technical, economic, social, and political constraints. The
problem is multiplied by the diversity of the engineering solutions that must be
developed for the different combustion processes and different kinds of pollutants
they produce. For each of the three major pollutants — sulfur oxides, fine par-
ticulates, and nitrogen oxides — the overall problem is characterized by the
complexity and non-uniformity of the technical subject matter. Still we must
deal with the problem in the shortest possible time, without undue impact on
our economic system.
BecauS'e of the need to quantify the magnitude of problems associated with
sulfur oxides emissions from the utility industry of the United States, the
National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) analyzed predictions
of power industry growth. By interpreting projections by the Atomic Energy
f^^mmission, the EMison Electric, the Federal Power Commission, and the
President's Office of Science and Technology, NAPCA developed estimates of
how much sulfur oxides pollution we might expect from production of the electric
power that will be required by our expanding economy over the next 30 to 50
years. These estimates C,') have been carefully examined in detail. Independ-
ent experts both inside and outside of government have generally concurred, that
NAPCA's estimates of sulfur oxides pollution potention and the cost of control
are realistic estimates based on the best available information for projected
levels of power production.
To provide a broad perspective of the total problem of polilution from com-
bustion, the basic data on power industry growth have recently been further
analyzed. Estimates have been made of the quantities of nitrogen oxides and
particulate pollution that will accompany anticipated increases in power produc-
tion unless prevention action is taken. Also, consumption of fossil fuels for non-
utility uses was considered so that projections for the utility industry could be
expanded into a projection for all consumption of fossil fuels in the United
States. The results of these analyses with general comments on the problems
associated with control of predicted emissions are discussed below.
Sulfur oxides
The emissions of sulfur oxides from power production and other sources are
shown in Figure 1. The sources of information used in making the projections
were mentioned and referenced above. The individual factors considered included
projections of electric utility capacity, nuclear generating capacity, hydroelectric
capacity, fossil fuel capacities, sulfur levels in fuels, heat rates, and capacity
factors.
174
o
2
o
E
■<
Q_
<:
I960
1970
1980
1990 2000
YEAR
2010
2020
FIGURE 1. PROJECTED POWER GENERATING
CAPACITY OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES IWITH BREEDER).
From these data it is apparent that power production, which accounts for 70
percent of the present total sulfur oxides emissions from combustion and over 90
percent of the total anticipated in 30 years, is by far the most important source
judged on the basis of total contribution from all combustion sources. Even
recognizing that other combustion generally takes place in centrally located
furnaces that emit their effluents at low levels so that they have a disproportion-
ate eeffct on ambient air concentrations in urban atmospheres, it seems apparent
that control of surface emissions from power production deserves paramount
consideration.
It is further recognized that part of the impact of increased emissions from
power production will not be felt equally in all parts of the country ; some areas
will be affected more or less than the national average. It is clear, however, that
public concern about the health hazards and damage imposed on the public by
present levels of pollution is such that 3- to 4-fold increases in overall emissions
will not be tolerated.
About 90 percent of the sulfur pollution from power generation comes from the
burning of coal. EVen when consideration of the nature of the control problem is
limited to coal burning power plants, the problem of non-uniformity in the proc-
esses which must be controlled still is apparent. Factors such as plant size
(which may vary by a factor of 10) , plant age, and a host of considerations asso-
ciated with location make each power plant a unique control problem. For
example, a large modern power plant (1000 mw) burning a typical 2.5 percent
sulfur content coal produces 1.7 million standard cubic feet per minute of
effluent containing about 0.2 percent SO2. A process to clean this gas and recover
the by-product sulfur as sulfuric acid would have to have assured markets for
over 500 tons of acid each day.
175
"Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen oxides emissions from all combustion of fossil fuels are shown in
Figure 2. These projections were made using the same fuel usage data developed
in making the sulfur oxides projections, plus nitrogen oxides emission factors
for the various fuels and classes of combustion equipment. The tonnages involved
range from an estimated 9 million tons at present for the most recent estimates
to about 25 million tons by the year 2000. These tonnages represent 50 to 60 per-
cent of the total NOx pollution expected from all sources, including motor vehi-
cle, for the foreseeable future. Even though the role of nitrogen oxides in the
overall pollution problem is not well understood, it seems apparent that the docu-
mented role of NOx in the production of photochemical smog is sufficient evidence
to justify giving immediate attention to development of ways to limit future
emission's. With NOx, as with SOx, the power plant is a major contributor that
will become an increasingly dominant contributor. At present 30 to 40 percent
of all NOx emissions from stationary sources come from i)Ower production. This
contribution will increase to 60 to 70 percent in 30 years. Thus, in the year 2000,
it appears that the power plant and the automobile will present potential prob-
lems of equal magnitude measured in terms of total projected amounts of pollu-
tant emissions.
It should be noted that the curves .shown on Figure 2 are probably conservative,
since they are ba.sed on available data on NOx concentrations in combustion off-
gases. The emission factors used came from studies of older boilers ; modern
boilers operate at higher temperatures and therefore are expected to emit substan-
tially higher concentrations of NOx.
Particulates
Controlling particulate emissions from combustion processes is, contrary to
some opinions, likely to require development of new technology. Overall emis-
sions of fly-ash from all combustion sources are shown on Figure 3. These future
emissions were calculated using the same fuel usage data mentioned earlier. A
I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR
2020
FIGURE 2.PR0JECTED POWER GENERATING
CAPACITY OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES [WITHOUT BREEDER).
176
fuel ash content of 11.9 percent was assumed ; the present and future extent of
control equipment application and eflBciencies for both utility and various non-
utility boiler hardware tyi)es were estimated. The curves show what can be ex-
pected if the increase in control equipment application continues at tlie present
rate. In terms of overall particulate emissions, our situation does not seem to be
as critical as it is with SOx and NOx. The overall picture may be misleading,
however, because it fails to take into consideration the fact that presently avail-
able equipment for fly-ash control does not efliciently collect particles less than
approximately 1.0 micron in diameter.
The lower curve in Figure 3 .^hows what it is reasonable to expect in the way
of increases in fine particulate emissions. In addition to the estimates mentioned
above on fly ash generation and present and future extent of control equipment
application, the estimates of fine-particle emissions were based on extrapolated
data on fly ash particle size distribution and fractional eflSciency of electrostatic
precipitators for particles less than 1.0 but greater than 0.2 micron in diameter.
Figure 4 shows projected numbers of fine particles that will be emitted by utili-
ties with and without control by conventional electrostatic precipitators. With
control, emissions are les.sened slightly, but the number of particles in this size
range increases by a factor of 4 from the 1970 to the year 2000. This is particu-
larly significant because the particles in this range are the most objectionable
in several respects. They tend to stay susi>ended in the upiier atmosphere where
they may accumulate to a degree that is .serious ; accumulation of fine particles
in the upper atmosphere could lead to significant climate changes.*"* Particles in
this size range reduce visibility and inhibit world-wide solar radiatioiL Finally,
particles of this size are the most hazardous to health in that they tend to be in-
haled and retained in the lungs.
CAPABILITY FOB CONTEOL
From the control point of view combustion sources can be be divided into three
classes with distinctly different characteristics as far as the nature of the control
problem is concerned: (1) boilers under 500 million Btu/hr capacity (70 mw
equivalent), (2) existing boilers larger than 70 mw, (3) large new boilers that
will be built in the future and for the most part will be 500 mw to 1000 mw in
o
a>
o
c
o
E
on
on
O
on
70 75
15 2020
YEAR
FIGURE 3. PROJECTIONS FOR
TOTAL UNCONTROLLED SO2 EMISSIONS.
177
size. These tbree classes are not all inclusive, but they account for a very large
percentage of all of our present and projected fuel consumption. There will be
many individual exceptions to general rules as they apply to each category, but
certain valid overall observations can be made.
Boilers Under 10 Megaicatts
It has been estimated that we have about 950,000 boilers that are in the range
of 500 thousand to 500 million Btu /hr ( 70 mw ) . As a class, this group includes
essentially all non-utility combustion units (with the exception of residential-
sized units) and about 30 percent of the utility boiler capacity. This group repre-
sents over three-quarters of all of our capacity to burn fossil fuels. The total
pollution production potential for this group is not as great as these figures sug-
gest, however. The overall capacity factor or use factor for units in this class is
low, and in many instances, they burn gas or distillate fuels that are essentially
non-polluting from the standpoint of particulate of sulfur oxides emissions. Also,
these imits generally operate at lower peak temperatures so that nitrogen oxides
production is less than would be expected from equivalent fuel consumption in
larger and newer units that operate at higher temperatures. Unfortunately, this
group is made up in large degree of single boiler installations that are operated
intermittently, and therefore, control of sulfur oxides or particulate pollution by
any means other than fuel substitution is not feasible. Also, many are located in
urban areas and usually their emissions are vented to the atmosphere through
short chimneys so that the impact on ground level pollutant concentrations can
be of special significance.
Existing Boilers Over 70 Megawatts
Practically all of the existing boilers over 70 mw equivalent are utility boilers.
This class includes about 1100 boilers that range in size up to 1000 mw. These
boilers are located at power plant sites where the total capacity at a given site
usually ranges from 300 mw to 1000 mw, but may run higher than 2000 mw. The
age of these boilers varies from newly installed to over 35 years, but most of the
fuel consumption (70%) is in boilers less than 15 years old, so that pollution
from existing boilers can be expected to prevent problems for a considerable
period.
At present electrostatic precipitators could be used to control much of the fly
ash, but only about 40 percent of existing boilers are equipped with precipitators.
Further, precipitators now in operation frequently function ineflSciently, either
because they were designed to meet less stringent requirements than are needed
today or because they have suffered losses of efficiency with time. Even with the
best available equipment, the collection efficiency for particles smaller than 2
microns in diameter is estimated to be only 60 percent. To deal with the problem
we are now facing, we need to upgrade existing systems as well as improve tech-
niques for control of submicron particles.
Control of sulfur oxides pollution from many existing utility boilers by applica-
tion of flue gas cleaning devices should be practical in the short term. Being
larger, newer, and located in closer proximity to other boilers than is customary
with smaller utility and industrial boilers, boilers larger than 70 mw are more
amendable to control by flue gas cleaning methods that can be fitted into space
available at existing sites.
In general, the lower the capital cost, the more economically feasible a process
will be for existing boilers. For this reason, the so-called "throwaway" processes,
which involve reaction of SOx in flue gas with lime or limestone so that calcium-
sulfur compounds can be collected in precipitators or wet scrubbers, are most
likely to find application to sources in this class. In addition, certain regenerable
aqueous scrubbing processes, because they are relatively compact systems, may
be especially applicable to existing boilers.
At present, commercially proven methods for controlling SOx from this class
of boilers are not available. Certain processes have been offered commercially,
but none have been demonstrated to be capable of tlie long-term reliability neces-
sary for routine application in the utility industry. Others are in advanced stages
of development, but are still several years away from commercial availability.
Our ability to control nitrogen oxides emissions from existing boilers is not
clearly defined. It appears that SOx control processes that may be applied in the
future may provide some incidental NOx control — about 20 percent might be
178
collected by systems that remove sulfur oxides. Also, it has been demonstrated
feasible to minimize NOx emissions from some types of existing boilers by modify-
ing combustion conditions to minimize peak temperatures, but the methodology
and economic feasibility of approaching this problem on a broad scale has not
been defined. If significant reductions are to be made in the projected emissions
from existing .sources, considerable attention will have to be given to develop-
ment of reliable control methods that can be applied as the need is demonstrated.
H^ew Utility Boilers
Control of pollution from boilers yet to be built offers possibilities that are
not economically feasible for existing indu.strial or utility boilers. Improve<l con-
trol processes tiiat may be develoijcd in the immediate future can be designed
into the equipment prior to construction. Further, new units tend to be much
larger, and therefore, economy of scale can be realized. At present, however,
reliable, commercially proven processes are not available for control of either
SOx or NOx.
For control of particulates even the best available equipment will not be ade-
quate for future needs. We have recognized limits on present capability for high-
efiiciency collection of high-resistivity dusts, e.g., fly ash from many low-sulfur
coals. Fui-ther, the previously discussed inefiicient collection of fine particles,
which may be tolerable at present levels of 300,000 tons per year, may pose a
critical problem in the year 2000 and beyond when emissions are expected to
reach 1,300,000 tons per year, as shown in Figure 3.
Although several sulfur oxides control processes have been offered commercially
or are in advanced stages of development, only a few demonstration studies will
be completed by 1972-1973, even if present plans are accelerated. How fast proc-
esses will be applied after firm data on design and economics are available is
speculative. Much will depend on legislative pressure and the public willing-
ness to pay the cost of control.
For nitrogen oxides control from new utility boilers, we will have to depend
on what the boiler makers can accomplish using empirical approaches to design
based on qualitative understanding of the relationship between boiler oi>erating
conditions and nitrogen oxides production. Beyond this, little can be expected
unless we begin to implement existing research and development plans that have
been developed to improve our understanding of how NOx emissions are related
to combustion hardware configuration and how SOx scrubbing systems can be
more effectively applied for NOx control. Even if planned work is undertaken
in the very near future and is successful, it may be 10 years or longer before new
boiler configurations and new scrubbing systems can be designed for minimum
NOx production.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
At present, our capability for control of increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides, and the fine particulates from combustion sources is seriously
limited. The rate of increase of these emissions is relatetl principally to growth
of the power indu.stry, but other combustion sources are making significant con-
tributions to pollution. Unless we act now to prevent it, the insult to our environ-
ment will be massive.
For control of particulates, our most important need is for high-efficiency
devices for collection of fine particulate. This iwllutant produces damaging effects
on health, visibility, and the climate of urban areas. Also, fine particulates tend
to remain in suspension in the upper atmosphere, where continued buildup
of such materials could produce unacceptable worldwide climate changes. For
control of sulfur oxides, we need to develop sources of low-sulfur fuel for the
large number of small combustion sources that will be with us for many
years. For control of SOx emissions from existing and planned fossil-fuel-fired
power plants, we need accelerated programs for development and application
of processes that will prevent SO o emissions, as well as additional sources of
low-sulfur fuel. For control of nitrogen oxides, we need to develop better capabil-
ity for designing combustion equipment and scrubbing systems so that NOx
emissions are minimized without undue economic penalty. Without these im-
proved control capabilities, we may produce irreparable damage on a global
scale and we will certainly produce urban conditions that are intolerable from
the standpoint of health effects and damage to vegetation and materials.
179
From information available to NAPCA it appears that national expenditures,
including those by government and industry, for research and development aimed
specifically at evolving improved control methods will total well under $50
million this year. By the year 2000 we can expect that the power industry
will be spending many hundreds of millions of dollars per year to keep air
pollution within acceptable limits. Even though this expenditure will amount
to modest percentage increases in the cost of producing power, the expenditure
will be so great that we can't afford to attempt to do the job with marginally
acceptable methods that will unnecessarily add to the cost. Further, we know
that failure to control air pollution from combustion will result in large economic
losses. Losses resulting from damage to vegetation and materials will unnec-
essarily add billions more i>er year to the pollution i>enalty we are paying for
continued economic growth. Even without consideration of health effects, the
savings to be realized by minimizing the cost of control and by minimizing prop-
erty damage make the increased development effort required to do the job
an economic necessity.
REFERENCES
1. Hangebrauck. R. P., and P. W. Spaite. Pollution from power production.
Paper presented at the National Limestone Institute 25th Annual Convention,
Washington, D.C., Jan. 21-23, 1970.
2. Spaite, P. W., and R. P. Hangebrauck. Environmental quality through
responsible resource management. Paper presented at the 19th Canadian Chemi-
cal Engineering Conference. Canadian Society of Chemical Engineers, Edmonton,
Alberta, Oct. 19-22, 1969.
3. McCormack, R. A., and J. H. Ludwig. Climate modification by atmospheric
aerosols. Science 156:1358-1359, June 9, 1967.
POTEWTIAL UWCOWTROLLED SOj; EP-IISSIOWS
FROrvl CO'.IBUSTIOW Ol- FOSSEL FUELS • '
AKNUAI.
SOx
L;AiS5!OMS
MILLIONS
OF
■io;-;s pfR YE.'.r:
100
80
60
/o
20
TOTAl SOx EMISSIONS
FROM FOSSIL FUEL COMCUSTIOK-
yooo
yfa:c
180
POTENTIAL UNCONTROLLED NO, EMISSIONS
FROM COKilBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUELS
ANNUAL
NOx
E/AISSIONS
MIIUONS
OF
70IIS PER YEAR
2000
YEAR
PARTICULATE EMiSSiONS FROM COMBUSTJON
OF FOSSIL FUELS
ANNUAL
FLYASH
EMISSIONS
MILLIONS
OF
TONS PER YEAR
10.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUEL
COMBUSTION V^ITH CONTROL
NON-UTILITY COMBUSTION
UNCONTROLlAP.r:
FINE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS (Ui'MTV
J I L
2000
YEAR
181
FINE PARTICLE EMISSIOrj PROJECTION
COAL FIRED UTILITY BOILERS
O.J^TO 1.0(1 DIAMETER PARTICLES
:u//.^ER ■
or
Fi,-.'E
.RTia.ES
Yfi/.R
(7. lo")
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
100
0.0
1970
65 90
YEAR
2000
Senator Randolph. Dr. Middleton, I presume that you may have
data that would help us to understand the capability of our current
research and development effort to meet these projected increased
emissions of sulfer oxides that we have been discussing. Is that
correct ?
Dr. Middleton. That is correct. You are perhaps aware of the earlier
report on the Federal plan for control of sulfer oxide, and we are
in the process now of updating that and making a more recent assess-
ment, particularly taking advantage of the work of Professor Sher-
wood and liis colleagues in the National Academy of Engineering.
Senator Randolph. Dr. Middleton, of course you are familiar with
these matters, and I bring them into discussion for the record. There
was the study in 1967 by the Stanford Research Institute on sulfer
oxide pollution control, and the Federal research and development and
planning and programing, 1968 and 1972.
I have read it in part, only in part. It is a study to provide a sys-
tematic j)lan of required research and development to cope with sulfer
oxide emissions. Is that correct?
Dr. Middleton. Yes ; it is.
182
Senator Randolph. And we want to rely, at least in part, on the
information in tliere. That plan, as T understand it, has called for an
expenditure approximating $255 million over a 5-year period, so
let us say 1965 to 1972.
Now, the actual expenditures, as you know, Dr. Middleton, have
been much less than authorized for section 104. As you have said, sec-
tion 104 deals mth more than just sulphur oxide. Isn't that correct?
Dr. Middleton. Yes. It deals with products of fuel combustion, both
from stationary and mobile sources.
Senator Randolph. That is correct. And for what it is worth, I refer
to fiscal year 1968, when the figure was $9 million. Is that a correct
figure?
Dr. Middleton. Yes.
Senator Randolph. And for fiscal 1969, a $13 million figure. Would
that be correct?
Dr. Middleton. Yes.
Senator Randolph. And for fiscal 1970, $20 million. Would that
be correct ?
Dr. Middleton. With the funds presently available we will have
an amount available for obligation that would be about $37.8 million.
Senator Randolph. Well, then that would total possibly sometliing
close to $40 million. That would be an approximate figure?
Dr. Middleton. Yes.
Senator Randolph. Our committee authorized expenditure of $270
million for this same 3-year period. Is that correct ?
Dr. Middleton. That is a matter of record. Senator.
Senator Randolph. Yes; that is a matter of record. Dr. Middleton,
will you supply the figures indicated, the expenditures under section
104 of the Air Quality Act. Not necessarily at the moment.
Dr. Middleton. I would be pleased to supply this for the record or
I can give you something at this time.
Senator Randolph. Briefly you might touch on a few of the figures
available to you.
Dr. Middleton. The appropriations for 1969 under section 104 were
$18.79 million, and we were able to obligate $13.1 of that. For 1970,
you, of course, know we have just recently received an appropriation
of $45 million, and we would expect to be able to obligate $37.8 mil-
lion of that.
Senator Randolph. I think a useful review, Dr. Middleton, of the
sulfur oxide control technologies that we have under development is
the study by Dr. Sherwood. Is he a doctor? I think he works in chem-
ical engineering.
Dr. Middleton. He is a chemical engineer and he bears the title of
professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Senator Randolph. Well, I checked briefly his article m the January
1970 issue of Technology Review. I would like to insert that in the
record. Do you think it would be helpful, Dr. Middleton, at least parts
of it? 5 P
Dr. Middleton. Yes, it would.
(The document to be furnished follows :)
183
[From Technology Review, Januar\' 1970]
The sulfur oxides are a major health hazard in air pollu-
tion. But our supplies of low-sulfur fuel are few and our
technology for sulfur removal is inadequate to give us
comfort
Thomas K. Sherwood
Professor of Chemical Engineering, Emeritus
IVI.I.T.
Must We Breathe Sulfur Oxides?
The control of our deteriorating environment has be-
come a national goal of high priority. Many Americans
are increasingly alarmed by our pollution of air and
water and concerned about noise and about solid waste
disposal. Increasingly stringent control legislation is
being proposed by Congress and by the states. College
students— especially in engineering — want to use their
education to tackle these problems. A recent newspaper
poll placed pollution control fourth on a list of national
priorities. Government and industry are spending hun-
dreds of millions of dollars annually in efforts to under-
stand and control pollution.
The much-quoted 1967 estimates by the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare give the following figures
for total discharge, in millions of tons each year, of the
atmospheric contaminants of greatest present concern:
carbon monoxide, 72; sulfur oxides, 26; nitrogen oxides,
13; hydrocarbons, 19; and particulate matter, 11 — a total
of 141 million tons per year, or some 140 pounds per
year for each acre of the continental U.S.
Impressive as these figures are, they mean little unless
each pollutant can be assigned a weighting factor in-
dicating its relative importance as a health hazard and
as a source of annoyance. Unfortunately, the medical
evidence as to health hazards is incomplete and con-
tradictory, and the extent to which any form of pollution
simply annoys people is highly subjective.
N/lany pollutants are suspected of contributing to the
pollution hazard, but health authorities appear to con-
sider sulfur dioxide — and the very unpleasant trioxide
by which it is invariably accompanied in small amounts
— as the most serious single threat. Though automobiles
contribute some 60 per cent of the total mass emissions
of air pollutants, the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare spends several times as much money on
research directed to sulfur oxide control as on work
toward abatement of the pollution from auto exhaust.
About 80 per cent of the sulfur oxides discharged into
the atmosphere come from the combustion of coal and
oil. Gasoline contains almost no sulfur, so emissions
from automobiles contribute little. But the combustion of
coal, averaging about 2.5 percent sulfur, accounts for
more than half the total SOo. Heavy fuel oil. burned in
apartment houses and power plants, contributes quite
substantially.
H.E.W. predictions shown in the table (page 30) indicate
that total SO., pollution may triple in the next thirty years
if not controlled more effectively than at present. Nu-
clear power plants emit no SO2, but the use of coal for
power is increasing steadily and will more than triple by
2000 before leveling off after the turn of the century as
large nuclear power stations replace those burning
fossil fuels.
The Health Hazards of Sulfur Oxides
Much of the alarm about the health hazards of sulfur
oxides stem from publicity regarding several "episodes"
in which people died during periods of heavy air pollu-
tion. These occurred in the Meuse Valley in 1930, in
Donora, Pa., in 1948, in London in 1952 and 1962, and in
New York in 1953 and again in 1966. Some 4,000 more
people died in the few days of the London episode in
1952 than would normally have succumbed in a similar
period of time. These "excess deaths" are usually
blamed on SO2, though the smog at the time contained
many other pollutants.
Congress has asked the Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare to publish summaries of data on the
effects of various individual pollutants on health. These
are intended to provide "criteria" which the states and
"quality control regions" will use in establishing "stan-
dards" of acceptable atmospheric pollution levels. Only
criteria for SOo and for particulates have been issued to
date. Most of the data quoted were obtained in labora-
tory experiments with animals; there have been few
clinical studies on man with SO^ concentrations typical
of polluted city air. The first publication on SOo in 1967
was widely criticized on the grounds that the research
studies cited as justification for the criteria were "fre-
quently vague, incomplete, or quoted out of context."
The second publication on SOo standards, in 1969, re-
peated the earlier conclusion that ambient SO2 concen-
trations of more than 0.1 p. p.m. for 24 hours in any con-
secutive 100-day period may produce adverse health
effects in particular segments of the population.
Without control measures, most coals now burned in
power plants would cause this concentration to be ex-
ceeded in large cities. (The maximum average 8-hour
concentration reported for U.S. cities is 1.5 ppm, in New
York).
The evidence regarding SO2 (or almost any other pollu-
184
Concentrations ot sulfur oxides in the atmosphere in the U S
range up to 3.2 p.p.m., the higher figures appearing in commer-
cial and industrial sections at solid-tuel-using cities. The chart
shows a frequency distribution of sulfur oxide data for six
American cities. (Chart: Arthur C. Stern, Air Pollution)
tant) is highly confusing, but one conclusion appears
valid. It is that people with bronchitis, emphysema, or
lung cancer are highly susceptible to prolonged expo-
sure to SO2— or to generally polluted city air which
always contains SO2.
As Dr. William H. Stewart, Surgeon-General, told
Senator Edmund S. Muskie's committee in 1967, "It is
rarely possible ... to point to an individual case and say
with certainty, 'This man died because of air pollu-
tion.' " And Dr. P. J. Lawther, a leading British authority,
has stated that "experimental exposures to SO™ or sul-
furic acid in the kind of concentrations which rnay be
found in towns have never resulted in significant or con-
sistently reproducible increases in airway resistance in
human subjects." Yet Dr. Stewart has shown convincing
evidence that SO, seriously affects people with respira-
tory diseases, though the possibility that it may cause
such diseases is not proved. Dr. Lawther, referring to
the increased death rates during periods of heavy air
pollution, confirms this evidence: "The excess deaths
are among the old and the frail, the newborn, and those
suffering from diseases of the respiratory and cardio-
vascular system." That the old and weak are more sus-
ceptible is supported by the fact that the SO, standard
set by the American Conference of Governrriental and
Industrial Hygienists is 5 p.p.m. for an eight-hour expo-
sure by healthy industrial workers.
Much has been made of the probable health hazards in
presenting the case for SO, control. But there are addi-
tional reasons to limit pollution, perhaps even more per-
suasive. One is the damage it does to property and
plants. Another is the fact that people just don't like
polluted air. This last is really a pretty good reason,
since pollution annoys almost everyone. In the modern
U.S. economy we can afford to get rid of serious nui-
sances, and we are (erroneously) believed to have the
technology to control SOj.
Demoting pollution to a serious nuisance, however
would demote its control to a lower position on the'list
of national priorities than if it could be shown that New
York was about to become a large-scale Donora.
Though a great deal of clinical research is needed to
clarify the impact of pollution on health, H E W is con-
vinced, as Dr. Stewart has stated, that "it would be
foolish to say that we do not need more research it
Sulfur dioxide concentration
parts per million
Chicago
Philadelphia
St. Louis
Cincinnati
Washington
San
Francisco
Per cent of measurement equal to
or less than stated concentration
would be equally foolish and much more dangerous to
suggest that we must wait for more knowledge before
we begin to control pollution. We can, and we must pro-
ceed now," he insists. In any case, both Congress and
the public and the public are aroused, and the country
IS committed to action.
Limiting the Sulfur Content of Fuel
The obvious way to reduce air pollution by sulfur oxides
IS to limit the sulfur content of the fuels burned About
60 per cent of the total SO, discharged into the atmo-
sphere comes from the burning of coal; of this 80 per
cent IS emitted from power plants. The relation between
the SO, concentration in the atmosphere to that in the
coal varies with meteorological conditions and topog-
raphy, but it is estimated that the standards suggested
by H.E.W.'s criteria would be met if the coal burned
were limited to 1.0 per cent sulfur, or substantially less
in some large cities.
The New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area has set
standards requiring a maximum of 1.0 per cent sulfur for
fuels burned in existing power plants, and other regions
are following suit. Bituminous coal containing more than
1.0 per cent sulfur cannot now be sold in New Jersey
and the limit will drop to 0.3 per cent in 1971. But the'
185
To reduce the suHur content of residual tuel oil — the product
corrjmonly used lor power generation — is within the power ol
present-day technology. But the cost is so high that it repre-
sents an increase in basic luel cost ol 20 to 35 per cent. At 50
cents per barrel ol oil. desulturization is adding 0.7 mills per
kwh. to the cost ol power. (Data: Chemical Engineering
Progress)
Cents per barrel
60
Refinery realization
cents per barrel
of product
Desulturization cost
cents per barrel
of fuel oil
undertake a massive program to quickly build nuclear
power plants; remove sulfur from fuels before they are
burned; remove the SOo from the combustion gases be-
fore emission to the atmosphere; and employ very high
stacks or other means to deliver the gases at such a
high elevation that they are dispersed and diluted to an
acceptable level before they reach the ground. New
power plants can be located in sparsely-populated re-
gions.
The first approach Is impractical because o' the prohibi-
tive expense. Tall stacks are being promoted in England
but appear to have limited applicability. The second and
third approaches offer the best promise in the U.S.
The processes to accomplish sulfur removal from fuels
and combustion gases are not fully developed, however,
and not immediately available for wide application.
0.5 0.7 0.9
1.1 1.3 1.5
Weight per cent sulfur
in residual fuel oil
supply of low-sulfur coal and oil is limited, and it ap-
pears impossible to provide the needed fuels if this
standard were to be enforced across the country.
Half the U.S. coal reserves are east of the Mississippi
and half west. But 90 per cent of the low-sulfur coal re-
serve, much of it low-grade, is in the west, remote from
the large eastern markets. The low-sulfur coal produced
in the east amounted to but 34 per cent of the coal
mined in 1964. Approximately one-quarter of our low-
sulfur coai is in fact exported, and much of the rest of it
is sold at a premium for metallurgical use. Consolidated
Edison (New York) is reported to have entered into a
long-term contract to purchase low-sulfur coal at $1.50
per ton more than its usual price in the past.
The dilemma is apparent. If all fuels were to be limited
to 1.0 per cent sulfur in order to control air pollution,
there would simply not be enough coal to meet the
growing demand for power, and much of the coal in-
dustry would be put out of business. We must control
sulfur emissions, and we must have the power. The situ-
ation is like that of an irresistible force and an immov-
able object.
There would appear to be four solutions to this dilemma;
Sulfur is readily removed from distillate oils and the
technology is well established. Residual fuel oils are
more difficult to treat because they contain metals
which deposit on the solid catalysts employed. The
petroleum industry has spent a very large amount of
money on the development of ways to desulfurize
"resid," however, and there is no doubt that these
schemes will work. Esso, for example is now installing
desulturization units in Venezuela to produce 100,000
barrels per day of low-sulfur residual fuel oil primarily
for U.S. east-coast power plant use. The investments
required in such plants are enormous, and the added
refining step to reduce the sulfur content from 2.6 to 0.5
per cent will apparently increase the price of residual
fuel to the power station by 50 to 80 cents per barrel
(assuming a five-year pay-out) — an increase in fuel cost
of 20 to 35 per cent. Fifty cents per barrel of oil is
equivalent to an increase of about 0.7 mills per kwh. in
power costs.
Coal is quite another matter. The sulfur is present both
as pyrite and as complex organic substances. The first
can be largely removed by grinding and washing,
using existing technology. No one seems to have a good
idea as to how the organic sulfur might be removed, ex-
cept by expensive hydrogenation and liquefaction proc-
esses. The two forms of sulfur exist in coals in widely
varying ratios, and segregation of those readily washed
to remove pyrites is difficult. The National Air Pollution
Control Administration is actively studying the problem,
and it appears that the supply of low-sulfur coal may be
186
The sulfur oxides are not— by lar—ihe grossest polluters ol
our urban air. But many health authorities consider them the
most serious single threat. The curves show the amounts (in
parts per million) ol various pollutants in the atmosphere ot
Chicago. III., during the period 1962 to 1964. as published by
the U.S. Public Health Service in 1966 (Data: Arthur C. Stern,
Air Pollution)
43-166 O - 70 - pt. 1-13
187
increased appreciably by wet cleaning methods. Pre-
liminary results suggest that perhaps 15 to 20 per cent
of the high-sulfur utility coal is washable to 1.0 percent
sulfur at an incremental cost of 25 to 75 cents per ton.
Where fuel desulfurization is practical at reasonable
cost it offers the most obvious and direct method to re-
duce SO; pollution from combustion. Though they are
not yet economically attractive, there are several proc-
esses under development for the production of liquid
fuels from coal, and these will perhaps be employed
commercially within a decade. In the meantime most of
the needed coal cannot be adequately desulfurized at
acceptable costs.
Controlling Power Plant Emissions
This leaves us with the third of the solutions to the
dilemma: burn high-sulfur fuels, but remove the sulfur
from the stack gas. Many ways of doing this are being
actively developed at the moment. All involve some
means of bringing the gas in contact with some sub-
stance which picks up SO;, leaving the gas going to the
stack relatively free of this pollutant. There are some
25 such processes under development in this country by
industry and by the National Air Pollution Control Ad-
ministration (N.A.P.C.A.), and many others are being de-
veloped in Japan and Europe. Most are small-scale
laboratory projects, but several have reached the pilot-
plant stage. Only one has been installed in sizable oper-
ating power plants.
Several of these processes will doubtless turn out to be
technical successes, but the economics are not yet well
established for even the most advanced. Contrary to a
widely held belief, the technology does not in fact now
exist to effectively control SO; emissions, and it is com-
ing along too late to prevent a very substantial increase
in SOo pollution levels during the next ten to fifteen
years.
The limestone injection process uses limestone in two
ways. Powdered limestone blown into the combustion
chamber picks up some of the SO;. The gas is then
cooled and scrubbed with an aqueous suspension of
lime or limestone to remove the solid particles of sulfite
and sulfate, fly ash, and most of the remaining sulfur
oxides. It is then reheated to maintain plume buoyancy
leaving the stack. The scrubber is necessary because
less than half of the sulfur is picked up by the powdered
limestone in the combustion chamber. The total solids to
be disposed of amount to nearly three times the normal
fly ash from a coal containing 10 per cent ash. These
solids are essentially worthless and present something
of a disposal problem — for example, 160,000 tons per
year for a 200-MW. power plant.
The lime-scrubbing process has been installed to treat
all of the stack gas from two 125-MW. boilers — one at
the Meramec Station of the Union Electric Company in
St. Louis, the other at the Lawrence plant of Kansas
Power and Light Company. Both plants have had
start-up troubles but are expected to meet the design
objectives of 82 per cent sulfur removal and 99 per cent
removal of particulates.
Though the wet scrubber appears to be necessary be-
cause of the low SO; removal in the combustion cham-
ber, the possibility remains that dry limestone injection
alone, with no scrubber, can be developed to remove
sufficient SO; to be useful with many coals. This simpler
and cheaper version of the limestone process is being
tested in a 150-MW. boiler at the Tennessee Valley
Authority under a contract with N.A.P.C.A.
Several processes employ aqueous solutions of sub-
stances which react chemically with SO; and remove it
from the gas. The chemical agents must be regenerated
and reused, since they are relatively expensive. These
processes usually require a high-efficiency electrostatic
fly-ash eliminator, an absorber in which the gas comes
into contact with the solution, a mist eliminator, and, in
most wet scrubbing processes, some provision for re-
heat of the gas going to the stack.
The regeneration of the solution liberates the absorbed
sulfur, normally as SO;. This can be sold as such, or it
may be converted to sulfuric acid or to sulfur. Sale of
these by-products can conceivably offset the cost of
the entire operation. One process regenerates the solu-
tion with steam, another by electrochemical methods.
Most schemes of this type involve the addition of a
chemical plant of considerable size to the power-gen-
erating facility.
A variation of the aqueous solution schemes is the use
of a molten mixture of inorganic carbonates. This mix-
ture has a high capacity to absorb SO; chemically, and
the circulation rate is small. The sulfites and sulfates are
188
converted to sulfides, which are treated with reducing
gas to yield hydrogen sulfide. The product gas is suit-
able as the feed to a Claus plant for the production of
salable sulfur. The stack gases contact the molten salt
at 800° F. in a simple spray device, and no reheat is re-
quired. Only laboratory bench-scale studies have been
made.
Sulfur oxides can be absorbed chemically by various dry
solids, including several metal oxides. The finely divided
or pelleted material contacts the gas in a packed or
fluidized bed or in some form of "raining solids" device.
It is then regenerated by use of a reducing gas. The SOo
ends up as marketable sulfur. Processes of this type
have received something of a set-back because of re-
cent difficulties with the Bureau of Mines "alkalized
alumina" process. The solid reacting agent was found
to be insufficiently stable, physically or chemically, to
last through the large number of cycles of absorption
and regeneration required to make the process eco-
nomically attractive.
Solid carbon in the form of inexpensive char has been
used in Germany to pick up SOj from stack gas. A re-
lated process using activated carbon has been operated
in a fair-sized pilot plant in this country. The carbon
contacting the gases at 300° F. in a fluidized bed acts
as a catalyst to produce sulfuric acid, which is held by
the carbon. The acid is removed from the carbon by
chemical methods and the carbon is recycled. No gas
reheat is required, and marketable SO^, sulfuric acid, or
elemental sulfur can be produced.
One final example will illustrate the varieties of the
processes being developed for SO2 control from station-
ary sources. This Is the catalytic oxidation process, now
well developed, based on the well-known technology of
sulfuric acid manufacture. The gases pass from the
boiler to an efficient high-temperature electrostatic pre-
cipitator and then to a bed of solid catalyst which con-
verts SOo to SO3. The latter is absorbed in weak acid to
produce 70-80-weight-per-cent sulfuric acid. This con-
tains a trace of fly ash, but is directly useful in the
manufacture of fertilizers, the principal market for this
acid in the U.S.
These examples illustrate the diversity of the stack-gas
treatment processes being developed. One type pro-
duces a "throw-away" product; the others will yield
SO2 (with a very limited market), sulfuric acid (with a
market limited by shipping costs), or elemental sulfur,
which is easily stored and shipped. The total sulfur
effluent of all utilities would now supply more than half
the U.S. sulfur market.
As noted above, none of the stack-gas cleaning proc-
esses has been operated in a large power plant for more
than a few weeks. Costs, therefore, are highly specula-
tive. The less advanced the development, the lower the
estimated costs. Cost estimates range from zero to one
Annual emission of sulfur dioxide
.^
Power plant operation-(coal and oil)
(millions
1966
13.0
of tons)
^1970 ~
28.0
1980
1990
2000
42.0
60.0
97.0
Other combustion of coal
4.7
4.3
3.5
2.9
2.5
Combustion of petroleum products (excluding
power plant oil)
4.4
5.3
7.1
9.6
12.7
Smelting of ores
3.5
3.7
4.1
4.5
5.0
Petroleum refinery operation
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.9
0.8
Miscellaneous sources*
1.3
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.2
Total
28!5
43'6
58.4
78.2
TTs^
' Includes coke processing, sulfuric acid planls, coal refuse banks, and refuse Incineration.
Emission of sulfur dioxide,
millions of pounds
189
Power
plant
operation
(coal and
oil)
Atmospheric pollution by sulfur oxides wilt increase as U.S.
power consumption increases during the last 30 years of this
century. By the year 2000 power plant operation — (he major
source — will add nearly 100 million tons of sutlur dioxide to the
atmosphere unless restrictions more severe — and costly — than
any now in ellect are applied. Other sources make relatively
modest contributions to the sulfur dioxide burden of the at-
mosphere. (Data: October, 1969, estimates of the National Air
Pollution Control Administration)
Petroleum
products
(excluding
power plants)
Smelting
of ores
Ottier
combustion
of coal
Petroleum
refinery
operation
Miscellaneous
These developments, however, will not provide the total
requirements of low-sulfur fuels necessary to control in-
creasing sulfur emissions, so many utilities will install
facilities to remove sulfur from stack gases. By 1975
there should be several proven processes to do this. The
simpler methods which produce "throw-away" by-prod-
ucts will be adopted by many existing plants. The more
complicated processes which produce acid or elemental
sulfur will be incorporated primarily in large new steam
power plants.
By perhaps 1980 or 1985 sulfur emissions stemming
from smelters and the combustion of fossil fuels will be
under fairly good control, though total sulfur emissions
will have risen substantially over those at the present
time. By 1985 or 1990 there may be better ways to burn
coal, as by fluidized-bed comustion in the presence of
lime, which both improves boiler efficiency and elimi-
nates sulfur from the stack gases. By 2000 the sulfur
problem will be greatly lessened by the substantial
switch to nuclear power.
All of this will cost a great deal of money — perhaps $500
million to $2 billion per year. But this would seem to be
no great price to pay for removing a threat to health
and making the U.S. a better place in which to live.
mill per kwh. If the proven cost turns out to be 0.5 mills
per kwh., the annual charge to U.S. electricity con-
sumers would be about $500 million in 1970 and $2
billion in the year 2000. (The investment in facilities at
$10/kw. would be some $8 billion by 2000.) These costs,
of course, would be added to the bills sent to users of
electric power.
The Future of Sulfur Control
The future of sulfur control is not hard to predict, at
least in general terms. The country is committed to do
something about air pollution, and increasingly stringent
standards regarding sulfur concentrations in the am-
bient air are beginning to be enforced. Users of high-
sulfur fuels will turn first to natural gas. desulfurized
fuels oils, and the limited supplies of low-sulfur coals.
These will command a premium over present fuels, and
the coal industry will find washing of steam coals prof-
itable.
Thomas K. Sherwood, a native of Canada, has been a member
of the M.I.T. faculty in the Department of Chemical Engineering
since 1929, when he completed his Sc.D. degree at the Insti-
tute. He became Emeritus Professor upon reaching retirement
last June, and he will soon take up an academic post at the
University of California (Berkeley). This article is drawn, in
part, from his experience as a member of the Committee on Air
Quality Management of the National Research Council.
190
Senator RANDOLrn. Dr. Middleton, I am going to have provided
for insertion in this record certain statements of organizations that
are develo})ing sulphur oxide control methods. I would like your sub-
sequent comment on them because I think it would be helpful to our
subcommittee. I would be interested, and I am sure the members of
the subcommittee would, in receiving your best estimates on the total
industry-Government expenditures that wall be required to demon-
strate and to develop these technologies.
(The follo^^^ing letter was later sent to Dr. Middleton by Senator
Randolph:)
April 9, 1970.
Dr. John T. Middleton,
Commissioner, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Rockville, Md.
Dear Dr. Middleton : Thank you for your excellent testimony before the Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution on March 17, 1970, on pending legislation
amending the Clean Air Act. As always, your comments were clear and concise.
During our colloquy on sulfur oxide control technologies, I mentioned an article
by Professor Thomas Sherwood in the January 1970 issue of the Massachusetts
Insititute of Technology publication Technoloffy Review. In this article a number
of potential methods for controlling sulfur oxide emissions from fossil fuel
energy production are mentioned. Although not mentioned by name, the list
appears to include the processes under development by Bituminous Coal Research,
Inc.; CTiemico (Chemical Construction Corporation); Combustion Engineering,
Inc. ; Monsanto, Enviro-Chem Sy.'tems, Inc. ; Scientific Research Instruments
Corporation; Stone and Webster Ionics; Westvaco; and Wellman-Lord, Inc., to
name a few.
I wouild appreciate your estimate of the exi>en<iltures that have been made
and would be required to develop and demonstrate these sulfur oxide control
methods. This estimate should include both government and industry funds.
Your assistance in this regard is appreciated.
With warm regards,
Truly,
Jennings Randolph, Chairman.
(Additional materials relating to foregoing colloquy appear in ap-
pendix to this day's session. See p. 211. )
Senator Randolph. Can we agree, Dr. Middleton, that our discus-
sion has centered, at least to a degree, on control technologies tliat can
be added on the output end of new and existing facilities?
Dr. Middleton. Yes, it is.
Senator Randolph. There is ample evidence that technologies of
control are now available at the input end — and I use, for example, coal
cleaning ; is that correct ?
Dr. Middleton. Coal cleaning is available now for taking some of
the ash out, and we are at the point of developing a pilot plant to
determine the economic feasibility of removing sulphur from coal on a
commercial basis. This is around the corner. There is presently avail-
able no control technique at this time for that.
Senator Randolph. "What about gasification of coal ?
Dr. Middleton. Coal gasification is a very attractive way of taking
even high sulphur containing coals and turning them into pipeline
gas. There is a pilot demonstration of this process going on at the
present time, largely under the aegis of the Department of the Interior
in conjunction wnth a number of other organizations.
191
Senator Randolph. Would you say it might be an effective way of
controlling sulphur oxide in particular emissions?
Dr. MiDDLETox. Not only that, but it would be a particularly a-t-
tractive way of assuring that low-quality coal lignites, particularly in
the Middle West, could be readily available as an energy source.
Senator Randolph. Well, now, we want to make sure section 104
is broad enough. I think it is, but can it cover the matter of develop-
ment efforts in coal gasification? Do you think section 104 is broad
enough as it is now within the law or as it is proposed to be continued
in new legislation?
Dr. MiDDLETON. It presents no problem for our including it in our
system, but in view of the funding difficulties, we have had to assess a
different set of priorities, and knowing the Department of the Interior
and others had some interest, we were happy that they were able to
use some of their funds in the area of coal gasification.
But in direct response to your question, section 104 would, in fact,
allow research of this kind to be undertaken.
Senator Randolph. Dr. Middleton, I am sure that you and your
colleagues realize that with some 35,000 or 40,000 coal miners working
in the State of West Virginia, these questions are not cursory on my
part. They certainly go to the point of the discussions of how the mining
of coal within that industry and the uses of that coal within its market-
ing program can possibly be made to better meet pollution control
requirements. Is that correct?
Dr. Middleton. That is correct. I would extend thpt to say that the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has indicated as a na-
tional policy its concern that coal be continually used as a source of
the development of energy, and we are indicating ways in which it
might be used in the public interest.
Senator Randolph. Thank you. You mentioned coal cleaning and
you say that we have come a long way with that process. Is that
correct ?
Dr. Middleton. We have come a long way in the laboratory research
side in understanding what things now need to be tried on the commer-
cial feasibility basis. We are at the threshold of making that a pilot
plant trial. So, in that way we have come a long way, but we are far
short of having available commercial techniques for that purpose.
Senator Randolph. Well, then, you are not sure it is an alternative,
are you?
Dr. Middleton. We look at coal cleaning, burning coal, and stack
gas cleaning as three routes that should be made available for those
who burn coal as an energy source to use to remove sulphur oxide.
Senator Randolph. I am not sure that we know precisely the degree
of availability of low sulphur domestic fuels. But we hear much about
the setting of limits on the sulphur content of fuels and on importation
of foreiafn oil.
I think we ought to bring these factors into this discussion today.
We do have an importation problem, and we do have a problem, also,
in helping to keep our domestic fuels industries viable and healthy.
I spoke of the jobs of not only coal miners but of American workers
generally involved in these matters. There is the balance-of -payments
problem, too. It could be adversely affected by overincreasing the im-
portation of foreign fuel oil.
What would be your comment, if you feel you could make it?
192
Dr. MiDDLETON. Well, as earlier stated, the Department is officially
on record as assuring that the energy resources of this country should
be properly made available so that they can be used in context with
the clean air policy.
In this sense, the importation of foreign oil of low sulphur is one
possibility. We know they now come from Indonesia, from Libya and
from Nigeria.
We know that there are domestic oil companies building desulphur-
ization plants to take the sulphur out of both domestic and foreign
crudes, but the thing that is important to point out is that the importa-
tion problems related to the distribution of oil and coal are different.
And there are many places in the United States that may have diffi-
culty in finding low sulphur containing oil,
Fr»r these and other reasons you have indicated, we emphasize the
need to develop ways in which we may burn high sulphur containing
coals in this country and not reject them from the market.
Senator Randolph. There is a problem of balance constantly in our
economy and I recognize this. There is the need, insofar as possible,
as we work with other nations and use their products, to insure the
strength of our own output. I am thinking of it in connection with the
production and use of coal today.
Dr. MiDDLETON. Certainly in projections of the energy requirements
of this country. Senator, we are going to need all of the coal and oil
resources here, plus those that are presently being imported.
I would like to add, for your information, perhaps. Senator, that
in developing oil quota information, the Department of the Interior
has obliged as a consultant with the Department of HEW, so there is
a proper liaison in these matters.
Senator Randolph. Do you approve of the techniques of mangneto-
hydrodynamics in power production ?
I am not sure whether section 104 funds could finance research in
such a program. I think it would be feasible, perhaps, to research
and develop and further advance this technique, if it is a technique.
I am not sure, could Interior's Office of Coal Research, and possibly
private and other research fund investments be used? What do you
think?
Dr. MiDDLETON. There is a report, I am sure you and your staff
are aware of, from the Office of Science and Technology using the
expertise of the National Academy of Engineering suggesting that
there be a proper pilot run of this system, MHD — which for me is much
easier to say — to determine whether it has some real value in electric
generation.
Since this is the use of a raw energy resource in a more efficient way,
we look at this as an object of research that is primarily within the
purview of the Department of the Interior and those associated with
energy development rather than a project that the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare would directly join in.
Senator Randolph. Thank you for that explanation. Now, this final
question : Power generation, Dr. Middleton, is cerainly a prime source
of air pollution ; isn't it ?
Dr. MrooLETON. It is clearly a significant and large source of pollu-
tion that needs to be controlled in all places.
Senator Randolph. And there are other techniques. We need to use
section 104 to the fullest to research and develop air pollution control
193
techniques to the fullest extent. Now, I want to say, Mr. Under Secre-
tary, that it has been my privilege, personally and officially, to confer
with Dr. Middleton many, many times, and this morning, as always, he
brings to the consideration of this subcommittee the expertise and,
also, an understanding and an awareness of the problems that confront
us, and a need, where possible, not just to compromise but to be realistic
in what we do.
I thank you. Dr. Middleton.
Mr. Veneman. Thank you.
Senator Randolph. Now, I believe that while we have been talk-
ing. Senator Spong has had a conference with Senator Muskie, and
he would like to make an announcement.
Senator Spong. Yes. I would like to make a suggestion. I only have
one other question of this panel.
I would suggest that we receive into the record the statements of
Mr. Johnson and Dr. Cohen in their entirety, and that those Senators
who have been here this morning, and any others on the committee may
submit additional questions.
(Senator Muskie subsequently sent the following letter and ques-
tions to Secretary Finch. The answers will be found in the appendix
to this volume, beginning p. 345. )
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Public Works,
Washmgton, D.C, April 8, 1970.
Hon. Robert H. Finch,
Secrctari/,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Secretary : Pursuant to my conversation with Under Secretary John
G. Veneman at the conclusion of ithe Department's testimony before the Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution ion March 17, I am forwarding a number of
outstanding questions regarding the pending legislation and the activities of
the National Air Pollution (Control Administration.
An early resiwnse to these questions will assist the Subcommittee in con-
eluding action on the legislation.
I appreciate your cooperation and look forward to receiving your resiwnse.
Sincerely,
Edmund S. Muskie,
Chairmmi, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution.
AIE QUALITY CRITERIA
(1) Since enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967, air quality criteria have
been issued for particulate matter, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, photochemical
oxidants, and carbon monoxide.
What factors have contributed to the delay in issuing other air quality criteria,
and what are the priorities and time schedules for the issuance of additional
criteria ?
(2) Please describe the organization and membership of the ad hoc committees
which have participated in the development of air quality criteria?
(3) Please indicate the annual expenditures on air quality criteria related
research since enactment of the Clean Air Act of 1963 in the following areas :
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide and ozone
Oxidents
Particulate matter
Carbon monoxide
L Behavioral toxicology
I Epidemiologic studies
Vegetation effects
Effects on materials
Socioeconomic effects
Other
194
(4) Please justify the reported .$3 million reduction for fiscal 1971 in research
on health and economic effects of air ix)llution.
(5) What specific steps have been taken by NAPCA to coordinate health effects
research with the National Institute of Environmental Health?
(6) What research has been initiated to obtain information on the long-term
effects of contaminants and combinations of contaminants V
(7) What research is NAPCA conducting or supporting on carcinogenic and
mutagenic effects of contaminants and combinations of contaminants?
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
( 1 ) What specific contracts and grants were awarded under Section 104 for the
following categories?
Control of Sulfur Oxide Pollution : Removal of sulfur from coal ; removal
of sulfur from fuel oil; removal of sulfur from flue gas; new process
development.
Control of nitrogen oxides pollution.
Control of particulate pollution.
Control of pollution from specific industries.
Control of pollution from solid waste disposal.
Control device improvement studies.
Control of automotive emissions.
Alternatives to the internal combustion engine.
(2) How many contracts and grants have been awarded since July 1, 1969
under section 104? For what purpose? In what amounts?
(3) A five-year (fiscal 1968-1972) research and development program was de-
veloped by the Stanford Research Institute for NAPCA. What were a) the recom-
mended total and annual expenditures for this program; b) the actual and esti-
mated exi)enditures ; and c) the expenditures recommended by the National
Academy of Sciences ?
AUTOMOTIVE EMISSION CONTROL
(1) What has been the level of funding for motor- vehicle ix>llution control
research and development and what are the estimated expenditures for fiscal
years 1971 to 1973?
(2) What specific program efforts are being made to develop alternatives to the
internal combustion engine?
(3) What data is available on compliance with auto emission standards after
sale by certified vehicles? Please provide this data for the record.
(4) What is the estimated effect of this failure to continue to comply witli
automative emission standards on projected air pollution levels of carbon monox-
ide, hydrocarbons, and photochemical oxidants?
(5) To what extent have States applied for the two-thirds grants for develop-
ing emission device inspection programs authorized in Sec. 209? Please indicate
the States to which grants have been made and the amount of each, if any.
(6) S. 3466 would increase penalties under Sec. 205 from .$1,000 to $10,000. To
what extent have penalties been assessed under the existing provision ? How many
times? Against whom?
STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
(1) What is the current status of the designation of the first 57 air quality con-
trol regions, the filing of letters of intent, and the establishment of standards and
implementation plans?
(2) Why does S. 3466 provide for deletion of section 106 which provides 100
percent planning grants for interstate agencies?
(3) What factors have caused delay in the designation of air quality control
regions? How many staff members are assigned to this function? To criteria de-
velopment? To control technology information development?
(4) What additional regions will be designated this year? j
(5) S. 3466 proposes only to enforce failure to meet air quality standards estab- I
lished pursuant to section 107 rather than plans for implementation of emission
standards. Would this weaken the existing law?
(6) S. 3466 proposes to give the Secretary authority to establish standards with
respect to emissions from classes or sources of pollution which contribute "sub-
stantially to the endangerment of public health and welfare and which can be
prevented or substantially reduced." This is, in effect, national emission stand-
195
ards for stationary sources. This provision appears to be in conflict with other
l)rovisions of the bill which require the States, after the publication of national
ambient air quality standards, to promulgate plans for implementation which
will assure compliance with those air quality standards by industry or other air
pollution sources. With which emission standards would a polluter comply?
Would a state be authorized to enforce its emission plan if a conflict with
national standards occurred?
(7) How many substances or source categories would be subject to national
emission standards for both new and existing sources? What estimates of cost
of compliance are available?
(8) Could you provide for the record a summary and status of Federal
enforcement activities to date?
(9) Would you supply the Committee with a summ'ary of State and local
ambient air quality standards, emission standards, and compliance schedules
developed under State and local law ?
FUEL ADDITIVES
( 1 ) Section 210 of the Air Quality Act of 1967 provided for the registration of
fuel additives. Would you provide the Committee with a copy of the regula-
tions propo.sed by the Department? Have these regulations been promulgated? If
not. why not?
(2) Lacking the technical information that registration was intended to pro-
vide, what is the basis for the Administration's request for the authority to set
standards for fuel composition and additives?
(3) To what extent has the Department compiled and analyzed information
on the effects of fuel additives on health and welfare?
(4) Please cite for the record any additives for which standards may be
promulgated.
(5) If lead is banned from gasoline, what assurances are available that other
toxic additives will not be used?
president's air quality advisory board
( 1 ) W^hen has the President's Air Quality Advisory Board met?
( 2 ) What policies has the Board reviewed or recommended, if any ?
noise pollution
(1) Is noise pollution a health problem?
(2) If a separate noise abatement agency is established, should that agency
be located in the Department of Health, Education and W^elfare?
personnel and staffing
(1) What were NAPCA's originally projected staflSng requirements to imple-
ment the Air Quality Act of 1967?
(2) What are the currently projected stafiing requirements for NAPCA?
(3) How does actual staflSng since enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967
compare with these projections?
(4) In tabular form please indicate the number of persons presently employed;
the number of persons needed to fully implement existing law ; and the number
of persons required to implement proposed legislation.
governmental eixpenditures
(1) What were NAPCA's originally projected funding requirements under sec-
tions 104 and 309 to implement the Air Quality Act of 1967?
(2) What are the projected funding levels for NAPCA through 1975?
(3) How do the following figures for sections 104 and 309 compare: (a)
authorization, (b) Departmental requested funds, (c) 'appropriations, (d)
budget authority, and (e) actual expenditures?
(4) The Administration bill, S. 3466, provides that the authorization shall be
"such sums that may be necessary" for fiscal vetars 1971-1973 for both Sections
104 and 309.
At what level do you expect to request appropriations for Sections 104 and
309? Please indicate the proposed allocation of the appropriation requests: low
196
emission vehicle research, criteria development, control technology information
development, regional designation, enforcement, etc. ?
(5) What has been the total annual Federal-State-local funding for air pol-
lution control since the Air Quality Act including the estimated fiscal 1970
and 1971 exi>enditures? ,, , ^ ,• i ..v,
(6) Could you update individual State and local agency figures supplied the
Committee in 1967 V
I myself have a series of questions on fuel additives I would like
to submit to you, and then we will recall the witnesses at the end of
these hearings. I think all of us would be in a better i^osition to con-
tinue in that manner at that time. Does that meet with Senator
Cooper's approval ?
Senator Cooper. Yes.
(The statements referred to follow :)
Prepared Statement of Charles C. Johnson, Jr., Administrator, Environ-
mental Health Service, Public Health Service, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, in the period since November
1967, the National Air Pollution Control Administration of the Environmental
Health Service has made significant progress in implementing the provisions of
the Clean Air Act, as amended. I am pleased to have this opportunity to review
that progress with you.
To begin with, the process of planning for regional control of air pollution has
been set in motion in areas involving 23 States and the District of Columbia. In
the next few months, this process will be extended to the rest of the first 57
areas earmarked for designation as air quality control regions. There will then
be at least a portion of an air quality control region in every State.
In designating air quality control regions, we have worked very closely with
State officials. Because the factors that must be taken into account in drawing
regional boundaries are also relevant to the process of adopting air quality stand-
ards and implementation plans, the involvement of State officials has given them
an excellent opportunity to prepare to carry out their responsibilities under the
Clean Air Act ; indeed, it was for the purpose of offering State oflBcials this op-
portunity that we have taken a rather deliberate and methodical approach to
this task. Having accomplished our purpose, we are now in a position to acceler-
ate the designation of regions in the months ahead.
For the regions already designated, State governments have begun adopting
air quality standards and are in the process of developing implementation plans
for sulfur oxides and particulate matter, for which we issued air quality criteria
a year ago. In twelve cases, these air quality standards have already been sub-
mitted to us, and in one case, the Philadelphia air quality control region, the
standards submitted by the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware
have been approved.
This week, when we issue air quality criteria for carbon monoxide, hydro-
carbons, and oxidants, the air quality standard-setting process will get underway
for these pollutants, as well. Early next year, we plan to issue air quality criteria
for three more important types of air pollutants — nitrogen oxides, fluorides, lead,
and polynuclear organic compounds. Air quality criteria for several other types
of pollutants will be issued in succeeding years. In each instance, of course, their
issuance, together with reports on control techniques, will trigger the standard-
setting process.
The extent of public participation in State hearings on air quality standards
has been one of the most gratifying and encouraging aspects of our experience
thus far. A great many individual citizens and organizations have taken advan-
tage of the opportunity to participate in such hearings. Never before in the his-
tory of the Nation's efforts to cope with the problem of air pollution has there
been such widespread and well informed public involvement. And for the most
part, State oflBcials have responded quite constructively to the views expressed
at these hearings.
197
Another very encouraging sign is the continuing expansion of air pollution
control activities not only at the State level but also at local and regional levels.
Over the past few years, there has been a substantial increase in budgeting and
staffing for State, regional, and local programs ; these trends are illustrated in
two charts appended to my statement. The availability of Federal grant support
and technical assistance has been a major factor in this growth. In Fiscal 1970,
approximately one-fourth of the National Air Pollution Control Administration's
budget was devoted to direct support of State, regional, and local air jwllution
control activities.
Our manpower development activities also are intended largely to support
State and local air pollution control programs. Through training grants to edu-
cational institutions and fellowships to individual students, we have continued
to prepare qualified personnel for careers in the air pollution field. And through
our short-course training program, we are helping to upgrade the competence
of personnel already employed in this field. Very recently, we took an initial
step toward the creation of regional air pollution education centers. I am refer-
ring to the establishment of a consortium through which three universities in
the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area in North Carolina are, in effect, jwoling
their air pollution research and training resources. We look forward to the crea-
tion of similar arrangements in several other areas.
Nationally, we have taken significant steps toward improved control of air
pollution from motor vehicles. The national standards that were in effect for
exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide for new passenger cars
and light trucks in the 1968 and 1969 model years have been supplanted by more
restrictive standards. Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide standards for heavy-
duty gasoline-fueled vehicles and smoke limitations for heavy-duty diesel-
powered vehicles also have been placed in effect. Limitations on hydrocarbon
evaporation from passenger cars and light trucks have been established for
application in the 1971 model year.
On February 10, Secretary Finch announced plans for further improvements.
In the 1973 model year, national standards for nitrogen oxides emissions will
be placed in effect for passenger cars and light trucks. In the 1975 model year,
the standards for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides emissions
will be substantially tightened, and limitations on particulate emissions will be
placed in effect. In setting these new and more restrictive standards, we are
taking maximum advantage of the emerging technical capability for moving
ahead with the control of the motor vehicle pollution problem.
Naturally, the success of all air pollution control efforts, whether undertaken
at the local or national level and whether aimed at stationary or mobile sources,
depends on the availability of practical and effective control techniques. For many
tyi^es of air pollutants and many important sources, such techniques are avail-
able. But there still are many gaps to be filled if we are to succeed in attaining
and maintaining satisfactory levels of air quality.
In the area of motor vehicle pollution control, essentially pollution-free auto-
mobiles must be available in the 1980's. Whether this can be accomplished with-
out abandoning the internal combustion engine is questionable. Accordingly, we
aie continuing to conduct and support research and development on emission
control techniques applicable to the internal combu.stion engine, including tech-
niques such as engine and fuel modification and the use of emission control
devices. But at the same time, increasing emphasis is being placed on the devel-
opment of alternative, low-emission engine .systems. Under the President's pro-
posed budget for Fiscal 1971, our total investment in research and development
relating to motor vehicle pollution control will be substantially increased — from
about $4 million to $12.9 million, some $9 million will be devoted to .stimulating
and supporting the development of unconventional, low-emission engines.
Insofar as stationary sources of air pollution are concerned, a major portion
of our research and development program is directed toward demonstrating the
technical and economic feasibility of sulfur oxides control processes applicable
to electric generating plants. This activity includes processes for removing a
portion of the sulfur from coal and for removing sulfur oxides from stack gases.
Several promising processes are in various stages of development under the
National Air Pollution Control Administration's auspices and in the private
sector. Large-scale demonstration testing of the dry limestone injection and wet
scrubbing process. In addition, negotiations are underway with various organi-
198
zations in the private sector for joint funding of demonstrations of other prom-
ising techniques, including coal-cleaning. The objective of this activity is, of
course, to insure that the Nation will not have to rely solely on the use of fuels
which are naturally low in sulfur as a means of dealing with the sulfur oxides
problem but, instead, will have a range of alternatives applicable to the various
sizes, configurations, and locations of combustion sources of sulfur oxides
pollution.
There are, of course, many other stationary source problems for which new or
improved control techniques are needed. Our program includes research and
development on many of these problems. A comprehensive appraisal of currently
available techniques for dealing with nitrogen oxides emissions is nearing com-
pletion ; this undertaking will provide a basis for planning of research and
development in this area. A series of studies of the air pollution problems asso-
ciated with specific industries has been undertaken. Studies of the pulp and
paper, iron foundry, sulfuric acid, and secondary metals industries are underway.
The primary aluminum, phosphate fertilizer, cement, and petroleum refining
industries are others in which studies will be initiated. In all of these studies,
the primary objective is to define needs for new or improved control techniques,
so that government and industry can move ahead with needed research and
development activities.
The activities I have described thus far constitute one major segment of our
program, in that all of them are directed toward the objective of insuring the
development and application of techniques for preventing and controlling air
pollution. The other major program segment encompasses our continuing efforts
to acquire an improved understanding of the nature and extent of the Nation's
air pollution problem and of its impact on man and his environment.
Our program of research on the effects of air pollution is oriented toward
acquiring the information needed for the development of air quality criteria. With
this objective in mind, our health research activities have been broadened to
provide knowledge not only about the relationship of air pollution exposure to the
occurrence of chronic respiratory disease but also about human body burdens of
substances present in the air, physiological and mechanical changes, and altera-
tions in behavior and psychomotor functions.
A major new effort has been initiated to observe and measure people's health
in relation to air pollution exposure. I am referring to the health effects surveil-
lance network which we are establishing in communities that have high, low,
and intermediate levels of air pollution. In several such communities across the
Nation, we will make regular measurements of the levels of various air pollutants
and maintain records of fluctuations in selected health factors, such as the occur-
rence of respiratory illnesses among children and asthmatic attacks among
adults.
Air quality surveillance activities are a vital part of our efforts to define the
nature and extent of the Nation's air pollution problem and to assess the progress
of control programs. In this area, our objective is to have an integrated Federal-
State-local air monitoring system covering the entire Nation. In addition to ex-
panding and modernizing our own air monitoring network, we are assisting State
and local agencies in expanding and improving their networks and in making
more efficient use of the data they gather. Furthermore, we have set up a national
air data bank to facilitate the storage, retrieval, and use of air pollution data ;
our ultimate objective is to have all past and current air quality data stored in
the bank and thus provide a base for nationwide measuring and reporting of
air quality changes.
That completes my summary of our progress during the past two and one-half
years. I have tried just to highlight some of the most important areas of activity.
Our annual reports to the Congress \mder section 306 of the Clean Air Act have
provided a much more detailed picture. Looking back over this period, I feel that
our accomplishments have been significant ; certainly, the Nation's capability
of dealing with the problem of air iwllution is now much closer to matching our
awareness of the need for action. There can be no doubt, however, that our capa-
bility still is not adequate or that our programs of action still need to be improved
and accelerated. Air pollution threatens our health and welfare and the overall
quality of our environment in many direct and indirect ways. The sooner we
overcome that threat, the better off we all will be.
199
o
O
O
I— I
<
a
t— <
CO
M
Q
8-
o
CO
H
en
o
o
60
SO
40
30
20
10
(44)*
200
(190*
(170)^
FEDERAL
15.6
feoeHal
31.2
(93)*
NON-
FEDERAL
9.3
FEDERAL
4.1
NON-
FEDERAL
9.6
I I
! I
NON-
FEDERAL
23.1
NON-
FEDERAL
\961 1965 1968 1969 JULY
YEAR ■ '
Stale, local, and regional agencies air pollution control budgets.
* Number of agencies
201
1
ry^i-.'-i-i'Yi'iViwi'iVi'iSyivVi'.'iiiym
■ [•■■■■Mil
cr
lil
UJ o
< -> ^
5 < S
&
o
z
<
<
o
o
_l
o
z
<
UJ
<
1-
co
Q
UJ
z
m
< -1
"■^ 1 : :
: .:;:■;■;.
-~l
k^^l.A
' ^■■•- ■■' '-^ ■
■^^^'■- *-•■■'..
CC
<
' _1
-I <
1 u
■1 U1
i,\ ■>•■■■•: V, .-■«•■■'■■■ im'! iViv^
I r^^ <• i ^ v i I V . s ^ '
o
o
o
o
o
SNOiiisod o3i3oana jo agawnn
202
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION INFORMATION RELATING TO STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR
SULFUR OXIDES AND PARTICULATE MATTER THROUGH MAR. 10, 1970
Standards
Public hearings
scheduled/held
Region
Designation
State
Due
Submitted
Plans due
Washington, D.C..
. Oct.
1,1968
Virginia
. July 14,1969
. Nov. 10,1969
Oct.
13,1969
May 7, 1970
Maryland
. Oct. 1,1969
do
Feb.
3, 1970
Do.
District of
Oct. 24, 1969
do
Nov.
7, 1969
Do.
Columbia.
New York City....
. Nov.
20, 1968
New York
May 13, 14,15,
do
Nov.
19, 1969
Do.
-
1969.
New Jersey
Sept. 22, 1969.-.-
do
Oct.
30, 1969
Do.
Connecticut
- Aug. 12, 19, 1969-
do
Nov.
7,1969
Do.
Chicago
. Dec.
4,1968
Illinois
Aug. 5,1969
do
Nov.
3, 1969
Do.
Indiana..
July 21; Sept. 26,
1969.
do
Nov.
10,1969
Do.
Philadelphia
. Dec.
17, 1968
Pennsylvania...
Sept. 10, 1969... -
do
Nov.
3, 1969
Do.
New Jersey
Sept. 22, 1969....
do
Oct.
30, 1969
Do.
Delaware
Sept. 26, 1969....
do
Oct.
29, 1969
Do.
Denver..
. Jan.
15,1969
Colorado
Oct. 15,1969
do
Do.
Los Angeles
. Jan.
29, 1969
California
Sept. 17; Nov. 19,
1969.
Nov. 12,1969....
do
Dec.
15, 1969
Do.
St. Louis
. Apr.
11,1969
Missouri
. Jan. 6,1970
Jan.
5, 1970
July 6,1970
Illinois...
Aug. 12, 1969... -
do
Nov.
3, 1969
Do.
Boston
. Apr.
12, 1969
Massachusetts.
Nov. 25, 1969...-
- Jan. 7,1970
Jan.
15,1970
Do.
Cincinnati...
. May
2, 1969
Ohio
Dec. 17,1969
- Jan. 27,1970
July 27,1970
Indiana
Oct. 28,1969
do
Feb.
25, 1970
Do.
Kentucky
Dec. 2, 1969
do
Jan.
22, 1970
Do.
San Francisco
. May
1, 1969
California
Sept. 17; Nov. 19,
1969.
Jan. 26,1970
Dec.
15, 1959
Do.
Cleveland
. May
23, 1969
Ohio
Jan. 20, 1970
. Feb. 17,1970
Aug. 17,1970
Pittsburgh...
. May
1,1969
Pennsylvania...
Sept. 9,1969
. Jan. 26,1970
Nov.
3, 1969
July 27,1970
Buffalo
do
New York
Aug. 19, 20, 1969.
do
Jan.
27,1970
Do.
Kansas City
- July
19, 1969
Missouri
Kansas
Jan. 21,1970
- Apr. 15,1970
do
Oct. 12,1970
Do.
Detroit...
. Dec.
17,1969
Michigan
Sept. 14, 1970
Mar. 12,1971
Baltimore
- Aug.
16, 1969
Maryland
Mar. 12,1970...-
May 13,1970
Nov. 9,1970
Hartford-
Oct.
3, 1969
Connecticut
Feb.9, 16,1970..-
. June 30,1970
Dec. 28,1970
Springfield.
Massachusstts..
Mar. 19,1970....
...-.do
Do.
Indianapolis
. Sept 18, 1969
Indiana
Feb. 6, 1970
. Jun. 15,1970
Dec. 14,1970
Minneapolis-
St. Paul
- Aug.
16, 1969
Minneapolis
. May 13,1970
Nov. 9,1970
Milwaukee
. Sep.
18, 1969
Wisconsin
. Jun. 15,1970
Dec. 14,1970
Providence
. Dec.
6, 1969
Rhode Island....
. Sept. 2, 1970
Mar. 1,9171
. Oct.
25, 1969
Massachusetts..
Washington
Mar. 18, 1970
.do.
Do.
Seattle-Tacoma...
Mar. 13,1970....
. Jul. 22,1970
Jan. 18,1971
Louisville
. Dec.
6, 1969
Kentucky
Indiana
. Sept. 2, 1970
do
Mar. 1,1971
Do.
Dayton
. Dec.
17, 1969
Ohio
. Sept. 14, 1970
Mar. 12,1971
Phoenix
Arizona
Dec. i2, 1969
Houston
. Jan.
20, 1970
Texas
Oct. 19,1970
Apr. 15,1971
Dallas-Fort Worth.
Jo
do
do
Do.
San Antonio
Jo .
do
do . .
Do.
Birmingham
.
Alabama
Toledo
Ohio
Michigan
Steubenville
. Dec.
6, 1969
Ohio
West Virginia...
Sept. 2,1970
do
Mar. 1,1971
Do.
Chattanooga
Tennessee
Georgia
Atlanta
Georgia
Memphis
Mississippi
Tennessee
Arkansas.
Portland
Oregon...
Washington.
Salt Lake City
Utah..
New Orleans
Louisiana
Miami
Florida
Oklahoma City...
Oklahoma
Omaha
Nebraska
Iowa
Honolulu
Hawaii
Beaumont-Port
Arthur
Texas
Charlotte
North Carolina..
Portland
Maine
Albuquerque
New Mexico
Lawrence- Lowell-
Massachusetts..
Manchester.
New Hampshire.
Texas
El Paso
Las Vegas
Nevada
203
(\IR QUALITY CONTROL REGION INFORMATION RELATING TO STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR
SULFUR OXIDES AND PARTICULATE MATTER THROUGH MAR. 10, 1970
Standards
Public hearings
Region Designation State scheduled/held Due Submitted Plans due
Fargo-Moorhead. North Dakota.
Minnesota
Boise Idaho.
Billings _ Montana
Sioux Falls... South Dakota.
Cheyenne... Wyoming
Anchorage Alaska
Burlington Vermont
San Juan Puerto Rico...
Virgin islands
Prepared Statement of Dr. Alexander Cohen, Chief, National Noise Stiidy,
Bureau of Occupational Health and Safety, Department of Heialth,
Education, and Welfare
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee : I appreciate the opportunity
to offer some technical comments on noise as a problem. Major intent of the
noise provisions in Section II of S. 3229 is to investigate present and anticipated
noise levels in our environment and their possible effects. My remarks are in-
tended to provide a reference point for such a task. First, they will depict the
nature of noise conditions presently being experienced in industry, outdoors in
the community, and indoors in the home. Second, they will consider the real of
alleged effects of these noise exix)sures on humans in light of current knowledge.
I direct your attention to the table included in my prepared testimony. Shown
ht're are sound levels for various sources of noise encountered in different environ-
mental situations. Such noise levels are expressed as decibels measured on the
A -network of a sound-level meter, abbreviated as dBA. Noise readings in dBA are
w eightetl in a manner designed to approximate the human ear's sensitivity to
sounds of different frequency.
is-iee o— 70 — ^pt. 1 14
204
CO
m
Q.T3
-a>
^ CO
«£:CQS "^•X.
■™ 2"^^°® oCQ
— c:>SB
« Q.-° ro £ M 5 =1 3 «
^0U-C30_jQt->0
O
oe
z
00
LLl
o
o
CO
o
CO
3
o
CO
C9
<
O
o
•a
CO
CO
a>
io
OQC-OD —
oo CO
oo CO
~ o
' ii; 0) « « >N
^0» CNJ o Cvt •*-
♦^ 5 "''^ " if
•^O-OOfSO.
Q.
E
i. £
o
o i/^ tl
coX
-oco
■"aSi^cO
to**" a>_.
O ^ wO
5 9 vJ o
5-0 2 TO
u_ ^ Dfl oj tj k_ j;;
r _ = -s~r
CO
CDS' -
00 CO
00
■i5^::mC-°£S^2S So
00 trt.^ Q>
oo
c ^^
= 00
.E ""
(/> oj _Z -= ^^ Sj ^^ _ —
2<Jre^"'E = o,_oo
e"2E"-K^E5o= r £J
•COcoOO:)— Ljju.zo^ o —i^
00.1;
CO
<
CO
>CQ
•a
o
o
205
The table shows that noises in mechanized industry, as a group, have higher,
more intense levels than those found outdoors in a community or indoors in a
home. Furthermore, industrial operations allow for more sustained types of
exposure to these higher noise levels during the typical 8-hour workday. None-
theless, certain noises intruding in community or home environments can reach
levels comparable to those noted for their noisier workplaces. Residents living
under the flight-path of a nearby airport, for example, may experience the same
noise levels as produced in riveting operations or around textile looms. A home
power-mower gejierates the same noise levels as a farm tractor or newspaper
press. The noise of a food blender may slightly exceed that noted in a milling
machine workplace.
Fortunately, these more significant sources of community and home noise
occur intermittently and perhaps infrequently which reduces the overall severity
of exposure. On the other hand, some non-occupational exposures, while inter-
mittent, may occur over longer daily periods than the usual 8-hour workday.
Indeed,' neighbors to major airports and busy expressways may experience inter-
mittent noises on a round-the-clock basis. Moreover, key sources of community
noise, such as those caused by transportation systems, may have wide areas of
impact and affect sizeable populations. Present indications are, for example, that
the supersonic transport, if permitted to fly at supersonic speeds across the United
States, could produce sonic boom corridors 50-miles wide that would impact from
35 to 60 million persons per transcontinental crossing. Even without the SST
booms, 130 million persons are living in urban areas throughout the U.S. which
are becon^ing steadily noisier due to increasing crowding and traffic con-
gestion, construction activity, and wide-scale manufacturing. Suburban areas
have not been spared either. A survey of these residential areas on 1967 revealed
noise levels that were from 4 to 7 decibels gerater than those noted 13 years
earlier. Even more striking, the maximum levels intruding into communities in
1967 were as much as 18 decibels greater than those found before. I should point
out that an increase of 3 decibels is equivalent to a doubling of acoustic energy.
This 18 decibel increase means that the maximum noise energy affecting the area
in which our people live has increased as much as 64 times in a 13 year period.
The environmental noise levels and exposures just noted can adversely affect
man in various ways. Real or alleged effects include —
( 1 ) Temporary and permanent hearing loss ;
(2) Physical and mental disturbances ;
(3) Interference with voice communication ;
(4) Disruption in job i)erformance ; and
(5) Disruption of rest, relaxation, and sleep.
Permit me to elaborate on these noise-induced effects in the context of indus-
trial and community /home exposures. ^ . , i, ii.v.
Noise-induced hearing loss is believed to be the most serious physical health
hazard posed by excessive noise, and such problems are prevalent in mechanized
industry. Surveys in a cross-section of manufacturing, construction, mining,
farming and other occupations have found noise levels potentially harmful to
hearing, and hearing studies on select worker groups exposed to such noise have
shown them to have poorer hearing than those in quieter jobs (office workers).
Estimates of total number of production workers experiencing noise conditions
hazardous to their health range from 6,000,000 to 17,000,000, the true figure is
unknown. , ^ j 1.1,
Recognition of noise and hearing loss problems in industry has prompted the
passage of regulations to curb this health hazard. The criteria or noise limits
contained in these regulations, however, still lack wide acceptance among noise
experts who believe that more information will be needed to justify limits pre-
scribed for certain types of industrial conditions. The Bureau of Occupational
Safety and Health, of the Environmental Health Service is conducting field and
laboratory research to provide documentation of hearing conservation criteria
for a wide array of possible industrial noise exposures. Noise and hearing sur-
veys have already been made in select steel-making, paper and wood products,
printing and publications, metal products, construction and transportation oc-
cupations. At the end of June 1970, there will be a hearing data compiled on
3,000 workers exposed to noise in these industries and evaluations performed to
establish safe levels of noise exposure. Other research supported by the National
Institutes of Health in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, has
attempted to identify mechanisms underlying noise-induced injury to the ears
and susceptibility factors.
206
• Community and home noise exposures, owing to their generally less severe
nature, do not pose the same hazard of noise-induced hearing loss as is the
case in industry. Yet, it is now contended that exposures to the aggregate of
noises characterizing life in a modern society — noises from mass transportation,
arrays of hou.sehold appliances, power tools, and hobbies and recreational activ-
ities—can cause some degree of hearing loss aside from that due to the work
environment. The Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health, Environmental
Health Service, has undertaken some pilot work in this area and is planning
more formidable studies in FY 1971. In particular, representative noise measure-
ments will be made in recreational activities including sport flying, drag-strip
racing or cycling, and rock-and-roll music playing and rated against criteria for
safe exposures to noise. Hearing of participant groups will also be tested and
compared with others of comparable age having minimal noise exposure. Evi-
dence of significant noise-induced hearing loss here will .seriously complicate judg-
ments of industrial hearing los.s and po.se problems in defining "normal" hearing.
Presently, there is much conjecture as to whether excessive noise conditions
can cause physical or mental health disorders. That noise can trigger changes
in cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic and other physiologic functions, with
correlated feelings of distress, is readily demonstrated. At issue is whether re-
peated noise-induced changes of this nature ultimately result in a disease process.
Many noi.se experts believe that man's tolerance to noise is quite high and that
most environmental noise conditions can be adapted to without ill effects. Yet,
there are others who maintain that the stressful effects of noi.se, along or to-
gether with other stress factors, can eventually overwhelm man's capability for
healthy adjustment with resultant physical or mental health problems. Scat-
tered evidence for both points of view exist but in point of fact crucial, systematic
studies remain to be done in this problem area.
For example, numerous studies on animals as well as humans have found
physiologic changes initially induced by noise to subside with repeated or pro-
longed exposure to the same sound. This suggests adaption and pre.sumably
no health problem. These studies, however, have not been conducted over
sufficiently long time periods to judge the possible long-term costs of this adap-
tion to the health of the organism. In this regard, physiologic irregularities of
a cariodvascular and neurologic nature have been reported in the foreign liter-
ature for workers expo.sed many years to high level industrial noise. Also noted
in these studies is increased irritability and social problems among the workers
both at the job as well as in their home situations. These results conflict,
however, with other investigations involving human exposure to high level noise
in the military. No unusual physical or psychiatric disturbances were found in
aircraft carrier deck personnel subjected to extremely intense noise for concen-
trated operational periods. Reasons for the di.serepant nature of these findings
are not obvious. Perhaps military per.sonnel, rei>resenting a select and condi-
tioned group, are better able to cope with a noxious noise environment. This, of
course, raises the issue of the possible stressful effects of noise on persons whose
physical and mental health is already imi)aired. Would, for example, better
noise exclusion in hospital wards hasten recovery time in the sick? A recently
published study found patients' requests for pain relieving medication in a
surgery recovery room to rise coincident with increased noise levels straying
into this area.
Hypertension, undue nervousness, and assorted mental difficulties have been
claimed by some residents living in communities subjected to intense aircraft
and highway noise. These claims have not been suflBciently inve.stigated to
ascertain their validity. Indeed, only two cursory type evaluations have been
made yielding conflicting results. In one, an inquiry of doctors having oflBces in
the vicinity of London Airport revealed only one patient being treated for a
mental disturbance attributed by the physician to aircraft noise exposure. A
check of pharmacies in the same neighborhoods found no above-normal u.se of
tranquilizers or drugs which might have reflet-ted the stress of the aircraft noise
disturbance. A more recent preliminary report from the same airix>rt locale has
found the number of admissions to a mental hospital from a residential area
receiving intense aircraft noise to be significantly more than from a comparable
demographic area not so exposed.
Clearly, the incomplete, incon.sistent nature of the evidence summarized above
underscores the need for comprehen.sive study of possible acute and chronic
health effects that may be caused by long-term cumulative noise exposures on
both general and .special populations. One can envision investigations where
207
the health status of groups experiencing known levels of noise will be monitored
for i)eriods of 10 or more years in length in order to fully evaluate this problem.
Such work will be complex, obviously time consuming, and fraught with eon-
founding factors. Nevertheless, resolution of the issue of physical and mental
health problems posed by environmental noi.se will require this type of effort.
Noise not intense enough to cause hearing damage or other physiologic effects
may still disrupt speech communication as well as the hearing of other desired
.sounds. In industry, this disruption can degrade efficiency on jobs requiring
reliable communication by voice. Much is known about the masking effects of
noise on speech and recommended noise limits for offices are based on these
masking considerations. Inability to hear warning signals or shouts of caution
in other workspaces because of high level noise can also be implicated as a factor
in industrial accidents but data to indicate the significance of this problem are
not available.
Noi.se annoyance reactions in communities also have arisen from interference
with listening activities. Schools neighboring busy airports and roadways in this
country have reported severe disturbances in classroom activities from intrud-
ing noises of these transportation activities. Measures of the masking effects of
noi.se on speech are now being considered as a basis for establishing permissible
outdoor noise limits in city noise ordinances.
The effects of noise on performing tasks for which voice communication is not
necessary are quite variable and depend greatly on the nature of the noise con-
dition present, the task being performed, and the attitude of the worker. The
most consistent laboratory evidence for noise performance loss has been shown
for those tasks requiring complete and unremitting attention to detail. Consist-
ent with the.se laboratory finding.s, performance on jobs involving vigilance
activities, such as monitoring machines and quality control inspection, show
improvement with the introduction of noise control. Data coupling industrial
noise conditions with accident rates, absenteeism, and employee turnover are
not available. Noise may be implicated in these occupational problems but
cau.sal relationships may be difficult to demon.sitrate. Also, the build up of fatigue
in a noi.sy job and its possible after-effects in off-job situations, e.g., automobile
accidents in returning to one's home, have not been studied.
There is little doubt that noise can frustrate one's desire for privacy, rest,
relaxation and sleep. Questionnaire surveys of communities exposed to intense
air craft fly over noise have found interruption of rest relaxation and sleep to be
major causes of annoyance and complaints. Presently, there is interest in devel-
oping annoyance criteria for noise based upon noise disturbances to sleep.
Various considerations dictate this type of criterion development. Field studies
have shown annoyance results when sleep or rest are disturbed than when other
activities, e.g. listening, are interrupted. Rest and sleep presumably provide the
conditions for restitution of body energy and recovery from fatigue and thus
may have health significance. Disruption of sleep by noise also offers a more
objective method for gauging annoyance than other procedures using subjective
ratings of acceptability. However, identification of noise or sound levels capable
of disrupting sleep is going to be difficult. For one thing, the amount of noise
needed to awaken a slumberer varies greatly for different stages of sleep. The
degree of familiarity or meaningfulness of the noise also has a significant effect
upon this disturbing quality. Common experiences have shown, for example, that
the city-dweller, frequently encountering high levels of outdoor and indoor noi.ses
becomes accustomed to such sounds and .sleeps in their presence. The same
per,son, vacationing in the relative quiet of the country, finds it difficult to sleep
because of the cricket noises.
Still another question that has to be answered in setting noise criteria for
minimizing .sleep disturbances is whether the noise may adversely affect sleep
even though a person is not consciously awakened. One expert in sleep research
believes that noise can interfere with the dream process during sleep, without
conscious awakening, and recurrent interventions of this sort may cause greater
irritability, tiredness, and difficulty in con cent rating during the awake hours.
Work presently in progress under the supervision of the Public Health Service
indicates that noi.se interruptions to sleep patterns over a succession of nights
may cause noticeable change in measures of ijerformance taken each day following
the noise-sleep sessions.
In addition to evaluating noise effects in sleep, great efforts have been made
to determine an acou.stic measure that can best quantify noi.se annoyance and
define limits for tolerable exposures. These limiting measures are essential in
208
environmental planning, but it is well to remember that many sounds are judged
annoying, not because of their acoustic properties, but because of psycho-social
considerations. For example, some sounds are judged annoying because they con-
vey distress, alarm, or have other unpleasant meanings. A Public Health t^ervice
supported survey of noise conditions in hosivitals found one prevalent source of
annoyance to be staff conversaitions in the halls. These sounds were not objection-
able because of their loudness, but because of the information communicated,
namely, descriptions of patients symptoms, forthcoming operations, and prog-
noses. To cite another case, the sounds of approaching aircraft can elicit fear,
owing to a crash possibility, and such fears appear to motivate complaints of
aircraft noise in neighborhoods near airix>rts. Similarly, the screaming sirens of a
patrol car, a clanging fire engine, because of the purix>ses attached to them, can
engender annoyance out of fear. These unpleasant associations, together with
nimierous other social, psychologic factors, including the necessity or advantage
attached to a noise source, the time of day where a given noise is heard, the listen-
ers conditioning to noise, all complicate the use of any acoustic measures for
rating noise annoyance. These considerations also make it clear that tliere are no
practical means for freeing everyone from the annoyance problems caused by
noise.
In closing, I should like to make two summary observations :
1. Noise levels and exposure conditions in communities and home environments
are beginning to approach in overall severity those found in mechanized industry.
Effects of noise believed si)ecific to only high level industrial noises are beginning
to emerge even in non-occupational situations. Perhaps I should iwint out too that
my division of noise levels and effects into indu.strial and communities categories
is somewhat artificial. In fact, hearing loss problems in industi-y may be aggre-
vated by the inability of the worker to find an off -job environment quiet enough
to allow his ears to recover from the occupational noise exposure. The distress
or disturbance created by community and home noises may be a carry-over from
the noise encountered in the work situation.
2. There is sufficient knowledge about certain noise conditions and their effects
to permit interim criteria to be established as regards hearing loss and t-peech
interference problems. Gaps in these formulations have been recognized and
research to supply needed information is in progress. On the other hand, there
is comparatively little effort being directed to study possible non-aural physical
and mental problems connected with excessive noise exposures. The nature of
such investigations requires long-term investment of time and money with the
possibility of results clouded by numerous confounding factors. Noise researchers
are understandably attracted to other short-term problems mth a greater poten-
tial of clean, definitive results. Nevertheless, it is this problem area that now
should recei/e the highest priority in any on-going research program concerned
with noise and health. The noi.se problem is most complex. I have tried to touch on
the major issues. I shall be glad to amplify my remarks on the technical matters,
in more detail, and to answer any questions that you or the Subcoonmittee
may have.
Senator Spong. I have only one other question that touches on what
Senator Randolph has covered. I would like to know the level that you
contemplate funding the air pollution program in the fiscal year 1971,
in particular regard to section 104 that Senator Randolph has been
talking about and, of course, section 309, for the balance.
Mr. Veneman. The total estimate for funding, Senator Spong, is
$112,118,000.
Nowj I will have to ask Dr. Middleton to break out the specific
sections.
Dr. Middleton. As to section 104 for 1971, we would expect to
obligate $33.9 million.
Senator Spong. And the balance of the $112 million would come
under section 309 ?
Dr. Middleton. That is right.
Senator Randolph. Senator Spong, I forgot to ask a question that
I would like to ask before we recess.
209
Let us consider aircraft emissions of tlie operating airlines. They
have entered into a voluntary agreement to attempt to decrease the
emissions from the aircraft engines. I am not sure who would want to
speak to that, but that is a voluntary agreement, isn't it?
Dr. MiDDLETON. That is correct.
Senator Randolph. Now, that relates to the airlines in the United
States. I must be very careful here. Does that include the foreign air-
lines, or is it only those airlines of the United States?
Dr. MiDDLETON. It includes the U.S. airlines, all of whom had the
smoky jet manufactured by Pratt- Whitney. It doesn't include the
foreign.
Senator Randolph. Now, that leads me to this observation : Let us
take New York City on the east and Los Angeles on the west, on our
two coasts. What fraction is foreign traffic that moves into one or more
airports on hoth the east and west coast.
Dr. MiDDLETON. This information would have to be obtained from
the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Authority,
but it was discussed in general terms in the Secretarys' conference.
They agreed at that time with the airlines that they would be able
to control most of the pollution, substantial quantities of pollution,
by December of 1972 from the smoky engines. The foreign aircraft
were discussed at this point in the meeting, and it was determined that
while they did fly planes that smoked, that the 707's would be likely
phased out in 4 or 5 years or probably disappear from the interna-
tional airports.
Senator Randolph. Well, I commend the action of the U.S. airlines
and some might have said it should have been done sooner. But cer-
tainly they have moved here on a voluntary basis on a large degree.
I don't want, however, a voluntary action as we have in the United
States to be, let us say, in reverse, a discrimination against the U.S.
airlines, if the foreign airlines are allowed over our airways, wherever
they may be, not to do so now. Would the regulatory authority, as
opposed to voluntary agreement, which didn't work for the automo-
bile, eliminate this discrimination ?
Mr. Veneman. Well, I indicated, also speaking to S. 3229 today,
Senator, that we did not feel the vessel, the aircraft, and the agricul-
tural vehicles are a major problem at this time, but we did feel that
should they become that, that ultimately legislation should be adopted
there if the voluntary effort did not materialize to produce results.
So I think it is something we have to be aware of, but I think we
also have to recognize the volume by which they are, in fact, polluting
the air.
Senator Randolph. Thank you.
Senator Spong. I would like to comment on Senator Randolph's
last question, I join in commending the airlines for what they have
done, but I think we all ought to recognize the extent of this. All they
are doing is removing the smoke. Technology has not reached the point,
if I understand Dr. Middleton's testimony before the Commerce Com-
mittee, where we know what we are doing with the hydrocarbons or
oxides of nitrogen. My understanding is that this is causing 1 percent
or less of the pollution, but I think we ought to know that getting rid
of the smoke really isn't really attacking the problem, and I think
that ought to be on the table at all times.
210
Senator Cooper ?
Senator Cooper. No questions.
Senator Spong. Speaking on behalf of the chairman, Mr. Under
Secretary, I want to tliank you for your appearance here today. We
look fonvard to the fui-ther hearings and to having you with us again.
Mr. Veneman. I would like to express my appreciation for the
cooperation you have rendered in behalf of the Secretary who has
been unable to be with us.
Senator Spono. Additional statements received relating to the ap-
pearance of the Department witnesses and their testimony here today
will \k^ included in the record at this point.
(The following statement was subsequently received :)
The Association of .State and Territiorial Heai^th Officers,
Washington, April 20, 1970.
Hon. Edmund Muskie,
Chairman, Subcommitfcc on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Committee on
Public Works, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman : I wish to forward for you and your Committee's con-
sideration the views of the Association of State and Territorial Health OflScers
relative to amendments to the Air Pollution Control Act which you have under
consideration at the present time. Please know that primary substantive contribu-
tion to this expre.ssion was furnished by the Conference of State Sanitary Engi-
neers, ASTHO's affiliated organization whose members are responsible for the
day-to-day environmental control efforts of state health agencies throughout the
nation, and which subscribes to this statement.
Much remains to be accomplished in respect to the complex problems of air
pollution control. That progress to date in these efforts has not been sufficient
is apparent to all — to you. to us. and most importantly, to both our consituents,
the American people. It is our joint constituency which suffers the ill effects of
ineffective air pollution control, and whose demand for more stringent control
measures are becoming a nationwide cre.scendo, and whose active participation
in policy determinations relative to this problem is a vital key to ultimate success.
It is the coordinate efforts of us all that is essential and legislation to control
air pollution should be cognizant of that fact.
We are of the opinion that certain of the proposals forwarded by the Ad-
ministration would not be in the best interests of this combined effort. Prominent
is the call for nationally applicable ambient air quality standards. The sole
justification for such a nationwide standard would be eliminating the possibility
of industry bargaining one state or locality against another for selfish economic
reasons. We believe that our citizens are sufficiently alert to a short-term pay-
roll versus long-term environmental despoiling to make sound judgemental
decisions relative to acceptable standards. We believe that this arrangement will
make possible the most effective cooperation of the public, the state and the
federal government.
For similar reasons, we believe responsibility for establishing emission stand-
ards should be a delegated state responsibility. Except for sources whose
emisisons are "extremely hazardous to health" such as asbestos, war gases,
pathenogenic aero.sols, beryllium and cadmium where in some instances no
plant should be built, establishment of standards should be done by the state
agency with, once again, federal review and approval or standards promulgation
in the event a state failed to establish adequate standards. Suitable differences
in requirements between one locality and another could be much better accommo-
dated resulting in desired control levels in contrast to national levels which, we
fear would be likely to be set at the lowest common denominator and reflect "rea-
sonable" levels rather than "best possible" levels.
It is advocated by some that publication of air quality criteria no longer be
required. We are of the opinion that such publication should be continued for
important reasons. Such criteria carries considerable weight at the best judge-
ment of the scientific comm,unity, conclusions which the public, local and state
governments simply do not have the resource to derive. These data are useful
and publication thereof should be continued.
211
In reference to certain amendments proposed by the Administration to the
present Act, we would raise the following questions.
(1) A^Tiy should not the offended state be represented on the hearing board
along with the offending state?
(2) AMiy should not air pollution control plans which are more restrictive than
those of the Secretary sui)ersede the latter?
(3) Why is the Secretary to be given authority to grant variances? The concept
that c-ompliance schedules allowed adequate time to implement standards is
preferable to the variance authority.
(4) Why does th^ proposal eliminate the requirement for public participation
in the development of air quality standards? As stated previously, we believe this
involvement a cornerstone to success.
(5) What accounts for the apparent discrepancy between the President's an-
nounced intent to designate interstate air quality control regions (where not
now named) and the HEW deletion of the requirement to designate air quality
control regions?
(6) Should not HEW be required to forward proposed regulations to all air
pollution control agencies?
(7) Should there not be the requirement that prior to Secretarial approval
of a state's implementation plan determination be made that such plan will not
adversely affect the ambient air quality standards of appropriate neighboring
states?
It is our judgment, after study of the current situation and the proposals
of the Administration, that priorities for involvement by agencies of influence
are inappropriately assigned by the Administration's proposal. Specifically, we
believe the roles of the Federal establishment in enforcement and in research
have been inadequate. In respect to enforcement the strong cooperation and
backing of HEW is essential. Since an increase in the amount of fines from $1,000
to $10,000 has been proposed, we are curious as to the number of $1,000 fines
which have been assessed under the present authority. As to research, we are
of the view that a much more extensive role could he assumed by the federal
govenmient. We have urged and we continue to urge increased appropriations for
research activities.
We trust that these views and expressions of our judgement will be instructive
of our position and of assistance to your Committee.
Yours truly,
Alfeed Frechette, M.D., President.
Senator Spong. "We are in recess until 9 :30 tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 1 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at
9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 18, 1970.)
(Appendix to today 's hearing follows :)
Appendix — March 17, 1970
March 10, 1970.
Senator Jennings Randolph,
Committee on PuMic Works,
New Senate Office Building,
Washington, B.C.
Dear Senator Randolph : We very much appreciated the opportunity to discuss
with you the present status and technical promise of the Westvaco SO- Recovery
Process and to hear your feelings on the urgent need to push such a process to
large scale technical reality. We also went into the technical details of the pro-
ce.ss and its potential for rapid scale-up with your quite capable technical as-
sistant, Richard Grundy. I was thus very pleased to receive your letter indicating
that our process apparently had considerable potential and was badly needed to
control air pollution when burning coal. The technical personnel in the National
Air Pollution Control Administration for the past year have had similar feelings ;
but as indicated in the enclosed letter received from Mr. Margolin la.st month,
their hands were tied until their budget was approved by Congress. Since the
HEW budget was approvetl last week, I understand our proposal for government
support of a scaled-up integrated pilot plant has now been sent to the contracting
officer for negotiation. I sincerely hope and believe these negotiations will be
given the needed priority to permit marked acceleration of this development.
212
Because of our belief in the technical feasibility of our process and the urgent
necessity to have a viable solution in operation within a very few years, we
have spent over two hundred thousand dollars in process development since sub-
mitting our proposal to the government at the beginning of last year. These
studies have further increased our confidence in the technical and economic
soundness of the process for use on existing or new boilers; and of its ability
to be scaled up with existing chemical engineering technology and hardware.
Since Senator Muskie has indicated that power utilities may soon be forced
to put in partial, stop-gap approaches, adequate governmental funding of soundly-
based, rapidly-expandable complete recovery processes could result in manyfold
savings to the ultimate power consumer and taxpayer.
I will briefly recap here my description to you of the Westvaco SO2 Recovery
Process: A specially-tailored, highly-eflBcient granual carbon absodbent is pro-
duced in existing commercial equiiraient from bitumimous coal. The efficient
adsorbent permits the use of relatively small flue gas adsorption equipment.
Similar equipment using granular carbon is currently used to recover waste
solvents from air streams which are comparable in volume to the flue gas from
large power boilers. The sulfur dioxide in the cooled fine gas going to the stack
is continuously absorbed on fiuidized carbon and reacts with residual oxygen in
the flue gas to form sulfur trioxide. This sulfur trioxide reacts with water vapor
in the carbon pores to form sulfuric acid which is retained at high levels within
the carbon. Continuous regeneration of the carbon with complete recovery as
sulfur dioxide or sulfur is achieved through progressive reaction between sul-
furic acid on the carbon and hydrogen. This hydrogen is produced from coal
employing the widely used producer gas unit and hydrogen requirements are
significantly below such experimental recovery processes as molten carbonate.
Process conditions have been optimized to prevent carbonlloss by any chemical
reaction, and the minimal attrition lass with proper granular carbon in similar
large scale processes appear to permit several hundred cycles with the carbon thus
minimizing make-up requirements. Since this is a dry process, the expensive re-
heat of flue gas required in water scrubbing processes is not needed. Capital and
operating costs for the process based upon semi-continuous pilot operation, which
were presented to NAPCA, indicate economics as or more attractive than any
other potentially competitive process currently known.
Although this process stands a good chance of satisfactorily solving sulfur
dioxide pollution from power boilers, it is virtually unknown since it has been
privately and confidentially developed. Our only presentations of the process have
been detailed presentations on the chemistry, engineering and economics to
NAPCA during the past year; and a half-day presentation this summer to the
Committee on Air Quality Management of the National Research Council. This
committee, si>ecially convened by President Nixon to consider the acute problem of
sulfur dioxide pollution, personally interrogated the developers of about twenty-
five potential sulfur control processes and received written presentations from a
number of others. Their specific evaluations were for governmental use and have
not been released. The only public hint of their evaluation appears in an article
by Professor Thomas K. Sherwood of Massachusetts Institute of Technology who
was associate chairman of this committee. In the January 1970 issue of M.I.T.'s
Technology Review a copy of which is enclosed, Professor Sherwood's article
Must We Breathe Sulfur Oxides? discusses "Controlling Power Plant Emissions"
based on his experience as a member of the committee. He states that "the tech-
nology does not now exist to effectively control SO2 emissions, and it is coming
along too late to prevent a very substantial increase in SO2 pollution even during
the next ten to fifteen years". He then describesi the few widely publicized proc-
esses which have been under development during the past decade some of which
are low eflBciency partial treatments such as limestone injection, some have been
set-back because of apparent basic process deficiencies such as in the alkalized
alumina process, and some produce diluted sulfuric acid as in Monsanto's process.
The only unreported process which he mentions is the Westvaco SO2 Process but
not by name or its then secret details. He says :
"Solid carbon in the form of inexi)ensive char has been used in Germany to
pick up SO2 from stack gas. A related process using activated carbon has been
oi)erated in a fair-sized pilot plant in this country. The carbon contacting the
gases at 300° F in a fiuidized bed acts as a catalyst to produce sulfuric acid, which
is held by the carbon. The acid is removed from the carbon by chemical methods
and the carbon is recycled. No gas reheat is required, and marketable SO2, sul-
furic acid, or elemental sulfur can be produced."
213
The temperature in the process is mentioned to indicate that our process can
be adapted to existing power boilers since it operates on the gas being vented to
the stack. A number of other processes under consideration such as the Monsanto
Process and the molten carbonate process must operate on high temi)erature
gases and thus require high temperature precipitators and breaking into the
present heat economy train.
Since making our proposal to NAPCA we have put up a mock-up of our pro-
posed pilot installation, a picture of which is enclosed. We are not running this
at room temperature with expected air flows to work out all the various
mechanical and materials handling problems to expedite start up when we erect
our proposed integrated pilot plant. In contacting some major engineering firms
in the power utilities field to aid us in most meaningful and speedy pilot plant
erection, we have been quite encouraged by their interest and the magnitudes
of their scale-up from similar pilot size eqipment. Whereas earlier postulated,
a prototype plant between this 18" diameter pilot-plant and that required for a
50 megawatt boiler, it now seems it may be possible and worthwhile to make
this jump in one step considering the amount of engineering technology already
available in this field. This decision would partially depend upon the amount of
risk capital available at the time, but your obvious determination to demand rapid
progress in SO2 recovery should prove most important in government support.
I apologize for the length of this letter, but you seemed anxious to receive
additional background on our process and its relation to the field. I am also
enclosing some additional literature for your possihle perusal and for Richard
Grundy. We appreciate your interest and I might mention that Senator Hollings
and Representative Rivers, who are from Charleston, have both shown a continu-
ing lively interest in the potential of this process. I have never asked any specific
help from them as I believed the process would move on its own merits.
Sincerely,
Frank J. Bat.t.,
Director, Charleston Research Center.
Enclosures.
Westvaoo, AprU 17, 1970.
Representative Harley O. Staggers,
Rayhtim Hotise Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Representative Staggers : It was an exciting pleasure to discuss with
you the critical problems that are arising so rapidly in continued combustion of
available coals and of the developing plans for accelerated development of the
Westvaco SO2 recovery process as a likely solution. You asked that I
thus write you a letter covering the background and the i)Ossibilities for expedit-
ing this development. I have just recently also written a letter to Senator Ran-
dolph, as chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee, covering our process ;
so to avoid any possible confusion, I will use some of the same language.
Although the Westvaco SO2 recovery process stands a good cihance of satisfac-
torily solving sulfur dioxide pollution from power boilers, it is virtually unknown
since it has been privately and confidentially developed. Our only presentations
of the process have been detailed presentations on the chemistry, engineering
and economics to NAPCA during the past year ; and a half-day presentation this
summer to the Committee on Air Quality Management of the National Research
Council. This committee, especially convenend by President Nixon to consider the
acute problem of sulfur dioxide pollution, personally interrogated the developers
of about twenty-five potential sulfur control processes and received written pre-
sentations from a number of others. Their specific evaluations were for govern-
mental use and have not been released. The only public hint of their evaluation
appears in an article by Professor Thomas K. Sherwood of Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology who was associate chairman of this committee. In the
January 1970 issue of M.I.T.'s Technology Review, a copy of which is enclosed.
Professor Sherwood's article Must We Breathe Sulfur Oxides? discusses "Con-
trolling Power Plant Emissions" based on his experience as a member of the
committee. He states that "the technology does not now exist to effectively control
SO2 emissions, and it is coming too late to prevent a very substantial increase in
SO2 pollution levels during the next ten to fifteen years." He then describes the
few widely publicized processes which have been under development during the
past decade some of which are low efficiency i)artial treatments such as limestone
injection, some have been set back because of apparent basic process deficiencies
214
such as in the alkalized alumina process, and some produce diluted sulfuric acid
as in Monsanto's process. Tlie only unreported process which he mentions is the
Westvaco SO2 process but not by name or its then secret details. He says:
"Solid carbon in the form of inexpen.^ive char has been used in Germany to
pick up SO:; from stack sas. A related process using activated carbon has been
operated in a fair-sized pilot plant in this country. The carbon contacting the
ga.ses at 300° F. in a fluidized bed acts as a catalyst to produce sulfuric acid,
which is held by the carbon. The acid is removed from the carbon by chemical
methods and the carbon is recycled. No gas reheat is required, and marketable
S(\., sulfuric acid, or elemental sulfur can be produced."
The temperature in the process is mentioned to indicate that our process is
not limited to new plants but can be adapted to existing power boilers since it
operates on the gas being vented to the stack. A number of other processes under
consideration such as the Monsanto Process and the molten carbonate process
must oi^erate on high temperature gases and thus require high temi^rature
precipitators and breaking into the present heat economy train.
The highly adsorptive carbon which is used in this process to trap the SO2 from
power plant stack gas was produced in large scale commercial e(iuii)ment from
bituminous coal. Similar si>ecially-tailored activated carbons produced in our
same plant are being used for purifying the air in the Polaris submarines and
this year for preventing gasoline vaiwr emission from California cars. This granu-
lar carbon adsorljent, highly-efficient in adsorbing sulfur dioxide, permits the use
of relatively small flue gas adsorption equipment. Similar equipment using granu-
lar carbon is currently used to recover wa.ste solvents from air streams which are
comparable in volume and rate to the flue gas from very large power boilers. The
sulfur dioxide in the cooled flue gas going to the stack is continuously adsorbed
on fluidized carbon and reacts on the carbon surface with residual oxygen in the
flue gas to form sulfur trioxide. This sulfur trioxide reacts with water vapor in
the carbon pores to form sulfuric acid which is retained at high levels within the
carbon. Continuous regeneration of the carbon with complete recovery as sulfur
dioxide or sulfur is then achieved in a second continuous step by progressive
reaction between the sulfuric acid on the carbon and hydrogen. This hydrogen
is produced from coal employing the widely used producer gas unit ; and hydrogen
requirements are significantly below such experimental recovery processes as
molten carbonate. Process conditions have been optimized to prevent carbon loss
by any chemical reaction, and the minimal attrition loss with proi>er granular
carbon in similar large scale processes makes several hundred cycles with the
carbon likely thus minimizing make-up requirements. Since this is a dry process,
the expensive reheat of flue gas required in water scrubbing processes is not
needed. Capital and operating costs for the process based upon semi-continuous
pilot operation, which were presented in detail to NAPCA, indicate economics as
or more attractive than any other potentially competitive process currently
known.
Because of our belief in the technical feasibility of our process and the urgent
necessity to have a viable solution for this problem in operation within a very
few years, we have spent well over flve Inmdred thousand dollars in this process
developmemt within a relatively short time. These .studies liave progres-sively in-
creased our confidence in the technical and economic .soundness of the process for
use on existing or new boilers; and of its ability to be scaled up with existing
chemical engineering technology and hardware. We are now running a mock-up
of a portion of our proposed pilot installation, a picture of which is enclosed. The
expected air and carbon flows permit working out the various mechanical and
materials handling problems to expedite start up when we erect the proposed
integrated pilot plant adjacent to our power boiler. In contacting .some major
engineering firms in the ix>wer utilities field to aid us in most meaningful and
speedy pilot plant erection, we have been quite encouraged by their interest and
the magnitudes of their scale-up from similar pilot size equipment. Whereas we
earlier postulated, a prototype plant between this 18" diameter pilot plant and
that required for a 50 megawatt power boiler, it now seems it may be po.ssible
and worthwhile to make this jump in one step considering the amount of engi-
neering technology already available in this field. Such plant scale decisions
which might be made with our process in late 1971 assuming immediate go-ahead
depend upon the ready availability of governmental or private capital willing to
take the calculated risks to further telescope time requirements. Adequate en-
couragement, determination and funding by you and Senator Randolph as chair-
215
men of the congressional committees directly responsible sihould markedly
expedite the executive decisions necessary to achieve relatively rapid solution
of these crises now facing the country in air pollution, utility generation and coal
fuel supply.
The technical personnel in the National Air Pollution Control Adminis-
tration for the past year have shown considerable interest in supporting ac-
celerated confirmation of our process; but as indicated in the enclosed letter
received from Mr. Margolin, their hands were apparently tied until their budget
was approved by Congress. Nevertheless, unfortnnately, fifteen months have
elapsed since we proposed immediate erection of our pilot equipment with
NAPCA supiwrt. By dint of a quarter of a million dollars of dedicated small
scale technical effort during this time, however, we uncovered significant ad-
ditional novel chemical and engineering approaches which have improved our
process versatility and control. Shortly after the HEW budget was approve'ci
last month, we thus met with NAPCA personnel in Cincinnati to discuss their
desire for immediate progress toward larger scale demonstrations of our
process.
Our present pilot plant proposal, which has recently been discussed with
NAPCA and involves less than one and a quarter million dollars in capital and
operating expenses during an eighteen month effort, should be formally sub-
mitted within the next two weeks. The object of this proposal is to rapidly
obtain substantiating technical and economic data on the integrated process
on power plant flue gases ; and to indicate the preferred chemical engineering
equipment requirements for large scale use. I sincerely hope and believe that the
contract decisions can be given the needed priority so we can very shortly
accelerate this encouraging potential solution for the serious pollution problems
facing the coal and utility industries.
Gus Brust, Al Repik and I very much appreciated and welcome your apparent
interest in further expediting this development. The WESTVACO SO2 RE-
COVERY PROCESS should have associated with it all the technical merit,
personnel capability and prompt support to now fulfill its present promise.
Sincerely,
Frank J. Ball, Director.
Ionics, Inc.,
Watertown, Mass., March 16, 19t0.
Senator Jennings Randolph,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Randolph : You are currently holding hearings on extending
the Air Quality Act of 1967. A key provision of this Act is Section 104, particu-
larly as it relates to Federal support of demonstration plants on new air pol-
lution control technology. I wish to call to your attention the Ionics/Stone
& Webster process for removal of SO2 from stack gases and append a brief de-
scription of it. We are negotiating now with NAPCA for support of a demon-
stration plant jointly with the utility industry. If it is possible, I feel the at-
tached write-up should be a part of the hearing record.
Sincerely,
Russell L. Haden, Jr., President.
Stone & Wbibstiir/Ionios Process for SO2 Removal
The Stone & Webster-Ionics Process has undergone pilot tests at the Gannon
Station of Tampa Electric Company, in Tampa, Florida, where the operation of
the process as a whole and of critical comiwnents was evaluated on actual
flue gas from a pulverized coal-fired boiler. The pilot plant was capable of proc-
essing about 150 to 200 CFM of fine gas which had an approximate concentra-
tion of 0.25 volume % SO2. As a result of these tests, a process design of com-
mercial size has been prepared and an estimate of the economic factors as a
function of plant desigia and other parameters. For large power generating
stations burning moderate to high sulfur-content coal it is believed that this
process will remove up to 95% of the sulfur dioxide stream, suitable for further
216
processing, presiimably for sale as sulfuric acid. Most important of all, this
abatement in air pollution in many cases should be achieved at no cost to the
power station. In fact, at the pre.sent price of sulfur, the installation of this
proc«'Ss should result in a net operating profit for the utility.
In its simplest terms, the process may be described as follows: A solution
composed of sodium sulfate electrolyte (Na^SOi) is fed to an electrochemical
cell wherein a cau.stic stream (NaOH) is produced at the cathodes and an
acidic stream (NaHSOi) at the anodes. The caustic (or alkaline) stream is fed
into the top of an absorption tower where it is contacted counter-currently with
flue gas rich in sulfur dioxide. A chemical reaction between the caustic and
sulfur dioxide to produce sodium acid sulfite (XaHSOj) effectively scrubs up to
95% of the sulfur dioxide out of the gas phase. The sodium acid sulfite is then
fed to a heated tank where it is neutralized by the acidic stream from the electro-
chemical cell. The neutralization reaction results in the reformation of the
sodium sulfate, which is recycled to the electrochemical cells, and the evolution
of pure sulfur dioxide. The sulfur dioxide is condensed and may either be
stored as a liquid or sent directly to a sulfuric acid plant.
Ba.sically, then, sulfur dioxide is removed from flue gas and recovered through
the use of only water and the electrical energy which is required to operate
the cells, pumps and blowers. There is no requirement for large quantities of
chemical reactants, and, most important, with this process no new waste stream
results which may be a .serious di.si>osal problem in itself. This is because the
process automatically purge the system of any sulfate from the absorption of
SO3 formed through the oxidation of sulfur dioxide in the absorption towers.
Moreover, pure hydrogen and oxygen gas streams are useful by-products of the
electrolytic cell operation.
To date, all data on the process have been obtained on laboratory and pilot
plant size equipment. One of the interesting aspects of electrochemistry is that
one can secure meaningful process data on a small scale. However, it is essen-
tial that there be a scale-up to production modules and demonstration of such
modules in the field on a .scale of sufficient magnitude to convince users of the
accuracy of the economic projections and of the reliability and ease of opera-
tion of large-scale cells. These cells and their grouping in "stacks" will be
similar to those now in a large-scale plant manufacturing a nylon intermediate
for Monsanto's Textile Division. Scale-up, therefore, is felt to be within the state-
of-the-art, but a demonstration plant is a necessary engineering step to minimize
contingencies. Stone & Webster and Ionics submitted in July, 1968, a proposal
to design, construct and operate such a demonstration plant for the National
Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) at a suitable location. In
December, 1969, NAPCA was advised by the key utility in a consortium of
utilities that the consortium was prepared to advance half of the necessary
funds, provided NAPCA would furtd the other half. None of such funds would
reimburse Stone & "Webster and Ionics for the monies already spent by them,
which are estimated to be in excess of $750,000.
The demionstration plant will contain comon.np'nts of commercial size and form
and will be designed to treat about 75,000 CFM of a flue gas containing 0.25%
SO2. This quantity is equivalent to that produced by a power station having an
approximate capacity of 25,000 kw. It is anticipated that the demonstration plant
wotdd operate for a period of about one year in order to acquire the necessary
data such as the useful life of key comx>onents and the critical operating
parameters.
The key features of the process may be summarized as follows :
1. It uses simple inorganic chemistry, and it works. All technical investigators
who have inspected it in detail, agree that it is technically sound.
2. It does not contribute to water or solid waste pollution in any way as so
many other processes do.
3. It eliminates the air pollution of the remaining particulate matter which
passes through electrostatic precipitators.
4. It probably also eliminates some of the air pollution caused by nitrogen
oxides, although this must be proven on a larger scale test.
5. It is unique in that it consumes power that can be instantaneously inter-
rupted. In quantities large enough to constitute a "loaded spinning reser\'e" useful
in preventing blackouts.
217
GENERAL PE0CE8S DESCRIPTION
The St<me & Webster-Ionics Process for the removal and recovery of SO2
from the flue gases generated by large stationary fossil fuel fired boilers involves
three basic steps. These are :
1. Absorption
2. Reaction and Recovery
3. Fliud Regeneration and Oxidation Product Rejection
Absorption
The flue gas is first cooled by quenching and drawn into a tower, in whicih
it is brought into contact with a dilute (2N) caustic solution. The flue gas
enters the bottom of the tower and the fluid enters at the top. At the top of the
tower, the flue gas, with most of the SO2 removed, is reheated and sent to a stack.
The caustic component of the absorbing fluid solution is converted to a sodium
sulfite-sodium bisulfite mixture which contains the SO2 removed from the flue gas.
Reaction and Recovery
The S02-bearing fluid can be stored because the compounds contained in the
solution are stable at the temperatures and pressures of the process. This sulfite-
bisulfite mix is reacted with a dilute acidic solution which is essentially sodium
acid sulfate. Tlais reaction forms coclium siiitate, fe02 and water, and is carried
out in a stripping tower. The oi-ertiead from this stripping tower is water-
saturated SO2. Tlie water content of the SO2 overhead gas is reduced by cooling,
with the condensed water ph^se saturated with SO2 being returned to the tower
on an appropriate tray. The SO2 gas then goes through a conventional counter-
current drying step with concentrated sulfuric acid. Pure, dry SO2 is recovered
at this i)oint in the process. Stripping tower bottoms is essentially a solution of
sodium sulfate in water.
Since the absorption proc*ess must follow power plant load, a large buffer
storage is provided after the absorber to allow the stripper and SO2 purifica-
tion and regeneration cells to function at a relatively constant rate. This liquid
storage also permits the cells to be interrupted on demand, thus using ofif-i)eak
power. Since this power can be made instantaneously available, it actually func-
tions as a "loaded spimiing reserve" ratlier than a simple off-peak load. The size
of the various liquid storage tanks is a function of power plant load factor, both
long and short range, but is expected to allow for shut-down of the cells for
periods up to two days.
Fluid Regeneration and Oxidation Product Rejection
The sodium sulfate solution is sent to two types of electrolytic cells which
are described in detail in the attached diagram. In both cells a cathode stream
of sodium hydroxide (caustic) is generated. This caustic solution is the ab-
sorption tower liquid feed. In the three compartment cells the anode product
is sodium sulfate. In the four compartment cells the anode product is pure
dilute H2SO4. The anode product from the three compartment cells is the acid
reactant required in the Reaction and Recovery step mentioned above. Oxygen
is generated at all anodes and is recovered as a pure gas and hydrogen is gen-
erated at all cathodes and it too is recovered as a pure gas. Each can be com-
pressed and sold, or otherwise used. However, the only value assumed in the
economics is to use the hydrogen as fuel.
The critical components in the Stone & Webster-Ionics Process are these
electrolytic cells wherein the spent liquid absorbent is continuously regenerated.
Reference has been made above to the use of two different cell designs, a three-
compartment cell and a four-compartment cell. The three-compartment cell is
the basic design which converts the neutral electrolyte into two streams, one
acidic and one basic. The four-compartment cell represents a further refinement
in design and is the means by Which excess sulfate ion is removed from the re-
circulating liquid electrolyte.
Excess sulfate will arise from two main sources. Any absorption process for
SO2 removal must consider the fact that a portion of the SO2 in the flue gas may
be oxidized to SO3 in the ab.sorpt.ion tower. In addition, an amount of SO3 will
already be present in the entering flue gas stream as a result of the combustion
operation. Upon absorption, any SO3 will ^how up in the electrolyte in the form
of sulfate instead of the desired sulfite-bisulfite. Since sulfate ion is extremely
stable (in contrast to the sulfite ion) it is not broken down in the stripi)er and
any recovery process must provide some means of purging this amount of sulfate
218
from the system. In other systems this is done by precipitation as calcium sulfate,
gypsum, which creates water pollution and solid waste. In the Stone & Webster/
Ionics process, it is removed as pure, dilute sulfuric acid, which has a value, in
the four-compartment cells.
Economics
Stone & Webster has prepared detailed capital and operating cost estimates
indicating that sales of recovered SO2 not only would cover operating expenses
but also would actually give the utility a return on the invested capital.
Capital cost varies with five conditions : power-plant size, number of boilers,
po.sition of existing ductworlc, sulfur content of the fuel, and power-plant load
factor. Operating cost is a function of energy cost, sulfur content of the fuel and
SO2 content of the effluent gas.
At June 1968 prices. Stone & Webster estimates a 1,200MW. electric station
burning 3.5%-sulfur coal in four boilers would require an investment of $18.5
million. Ductwork, dampers, reheaters, distribution substation, sulfuric acid
plant, interest during construction, initial chemical charge and initial supply
of membranes, electrodes and spare parts are included.
To remove 90% of the SO2 from the staclcs, operating costs at a Mid-west loca-
tion are set at $2,972,000. Income of $5,810,000 during the fir.st year of operation
would come from the sale of 340,000 tons of 99% sulfuric acid at $17/ton. No
credit is taken for merchant sales of oxygen and hydrogen.
Thus, Stone & Webster predicts a 5.24% return after federal income taxes
(52.8%) during the first year. Average return over the 20-year depreciation life
of the plant : 9.6%.
219
o
.^
M
Q
3
w
w
u
o
Or
43-166 0— 70-pt.l-
-15
220
N0,S04
9i
©--,;
ANODE
No HSO*
-No*
':/
;_M* — fso;
CM
No"
< >
"•n
^^
OH- —
CATMO'JE
1
»• noOm
No OH
No SO.
* Porous diophregm
:M * Nop porow< co)ion ptrm •tricet ivc mtmbront
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF 3- COMPARTMENT ELECTROLYTIC CELL
Ot
MjSO* ■^-
AM
ANODE
/
-►H
so;
M,SO«
■No'
so;
CM
No'
No SO*
OH"
o
CATHODE
NeOH
NoOH
* Parous diophrogm
CO ' Non-porous cotion perm • sel ect ive mrmbrore
AM > Non-porovs onion ptrm- ttlec live membrine
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF 4-COMPARTMENT ELECTROLYTIC CELL
Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems Inc.,
m. Louis, Mo., March IS, 1910.
Hon. Jennings Randolph,
Committee onPuhllc Works,
Washington, B.C.
Dear Senator Randolph : The Air Pollution Control Department of Monstanto
Enviro-Chem System.^, Inc., formerly a part of Monsanto Company, announced
in October 1968 that it had available for sale a proven air pollution abatement
system which would remove essentially all of the fly ash and over 90% of the
sulfur dioxide from power plant stack gases. Since that time we have approached
each of the major utilities in the U.S. (and a number overseas) offering guar-
anteed performance and assistance in marketing the by-product sulfur acid.
We have spent many millions of dollars in the past nine years developing the
process and so far, fruitlessly attempting to sell a unit.
221
The system not only will solve a major air pollution problem but will also
conserve our natural resources. It makes i)o.ssible the continued use of lower
cost high sulfur coal and oil both of which are available in the United States.
The higher the sulfur content of the fuel, the lower the operating costs because
sale of the by-product sulfuric acid produced helps to offset some of the operating
expenses.
However, air pollution control will cost money. It requires a relatively large
capital investment and in most cases there would be a net out-of-pocket oi>erating
cost.
It becomes a question then of what Is the most practical and most economical
solution to the problems.
We believe that our Gat-Ox system will be less expensive than low sulfur coal
or oil in many situations.
Monsanto foresaw the probable need to control sulfur dioxide emissions. Based
on its many years of experience as the world's leader in designing and building
sulfuric acid plants, it built a pilot plant at the Seward Station of Pennsylvania
Electric Company in 1961. Operation of this small unit proved that technology
developed for production of sulfuric acid could be applied to the relatively low
concentrations of sulfur dioxide in power plant stack gases.
To develop information leading to commercial reality, however, a prototyi)e
plant using commercially available equipment was required. Therefore, Monsanto
and the Metropolitan Edison Company agreed to build a prototype at Portland,
Pennsylvania. Portland was selected for this installation because it burns a
variety of bituminous coals and is essentially a base load station. In the Cat-Ox
unit at Portland, approximately 6% of the total boiler flue gas is extracted, proc-
essed and discharged through the prototyjte plant stack.
Ash removal is accomplished at an eflSciency of about 100%. More than 90%
of the sulfur dioxide present in the flue gas is oxidized and removed as sulfuric
acid. The strength of the acid obtained is a function of the operating temi)erature
of the absorption tower but averages 78%, which is a commercial grade. Operation
of the prototype unit began in August, 1967, and it is presently being operated as a
production unit Over 9,000 hours of operation — equivalent to over one full year —
have been successfully accomplished.
Over two million pounds of acid have been produced and sold. This acid has
been used in the manufacture of plant food through the acidulation of phosphate
rock.
The entire process is controlled from a small console located adjacent to the
boiler control console. No additional operating manpower is required for the
prototype plant. There are no unusual process control requirements. The controls
for the Cat-Ox system in a new full-scale installation would be integrated among
the conventional boiler controls.
While the process is foreign to operators of conventional power plants, it has
been readily a.ssimilated by the operators at Met-Ed. The system is simple and
has no moving parts that are not found in a conventional ix)wer .station.
As public concern increases and regulatory pressures intensify, the utilities are
looking at possible alternatives to flue gas abatement systems. They are finding
that the long-term viability of alternate solutions is uncertain.
For example :
Thinking people realize that higher stacks are not a long range solution,
if a solution at all.
Nuclear plants cannot meet the demand due to stretch-outs in construction
schedules and steeply rising capital costs. Even more fossil-fueled plants are
being planned. There is also a question of the long range availability of
nuclear fuels.
Low sulfur content coal is in limited supply at a premium price. Natural
or processed low sulfur oil already does or will command a sizable premium
over coal. Most existing coal fired plants will have to be modified to burn
either of the low sulfur fuels. Frequently, installation of Oat-Ox will prove
less costly.
Natural gas is in very limited supply.
Many new plants will find it less expensive to burn high sulfur coal and
utilize a Cat-Ox unit — rather than bum a low sulfur coal or oil.
Utilities eventually will be forced to adopt fiue gas abatement as the most
prudent course of action, yet there is a reluctance to do anything until they are
forced to, particularly if control measures are going to increase the cost of
electricity.
Although we have demon.strated that Cat-Ox is operable in a prototype con-
sisting of commercially available components and we know we can scale-up and
222
are willing to ^larantee performance and to assist in marketing acid, we have
been unable to sell a Cat-Ox unit. We believe this is due to lack of the legislation
forcing the utilities to clean up their eftiuent streams.
It is difficult to generalize on the economics of an installation ; however, the
following tables illustrate some projected costs.
TABLE I.— CAT-OX SYSTEMS-EXISTING PLANTS BURNING 3.5 PERCENT SULFUR COAL
Powerplant size
100
megawatts
250
megawatts
500
megawatts
Added capital:
Amount (million dollars)...
Amount (dollars Der kilowatt)
6
60
9
36
18
36
Added operating cost (cents per million B.t.u.):
8
7
7
Net (after acid credit)
Fixed costs
5
15
4
9
4
9
Total costs
20
13
13
Total increase In cost of electricity (cents per kilowatt-hour).. .
0.19
0.13
0.12
TABLE ll.-CAT-OX SYSTEMS-NEW PLANTS
BURNING 3.5 PERCENT SULFUR COAL
Powerplant size
250
megawatts
500
megawatts
1,000
megawatts
Added capital:
Amount (million dollars).
Amounts (dollars per kilowatt) . ..
10
40
18
36
32
32
Added operating cost (cents per million B.t.u.):
Gross
4
4
3
Net (after acid credit)
1
1
9
1
Fixed costs
10
8
Total costs. -
11
10
9
Total increase in cost of electricity (cents per kilowatt-hour)...
0.10
0.09
0.08
Thus, for control of emissions from coal burning power stations, assuming
2.0(?/kwh as the average residential rate, the homeowner could exi)ect an
increase in his electricity bill of about 6%.
Respectfully,
Joseph G. Stites, Jr.,
Manager, Air Pollution Control Department.
Statement of James R. Garvey, Before the Joint Committee on Atomic
Enekgy, February 25, 1{>70
Mr. Chairman: My name is James R. Garvey. I am President of Bituminous
Coal Research, Inc., Monroeville, Pa. BCR is an affiliate of National Coal
Association, Washington. D.C. A biographical summary of my qualifications
is attached to my written statement.
In the almost twenty-five years I have been with the national research agency
of the coal industry, I have been engaged in or directed research on coal
combustion including control of pollution resulting from coal combustion. During
the past ten years I have on numerous occasions appeared before Committees of
Congresis and other governmental agencies to testify oti the "state of the art"
of control of sulfur oxides.
At one such appearance, before the New Jersey State Department of Health
on October 6, 1967, I said :
"With all the activity by various re.search organizations, we are confident
that an economically attractive approach for the recovery of sulfur oxides from
flue gases will be available in the next three years, give or take a year."
223
The purpose of my testimony here today is to bring to your attention the
fact that this prediction of about two and one-half years ago was correct. We
now have commercial processes available for use although their economic attrac-
tiveness may not be ail we desire ; the added cost for sulfur oxide control may
increase the cost of electricity to residential consumers by at least three and
perhaps eight percent.
There are four companies offering for sale sulfur oxide recovery systems
for existing and new electric power generating plants which when applied
will enable the use of high sulfur fuels with stack emissions equivalent to the
burning of fuels with 0.5 percent or less sulfur. We had hoped to have the four
companies offering these systems appear here individually to describe their
proce.sses, and their confidence therein, but in the interest of conserving the
Committee's time, three companies have agreed for me to present a brief
summary of their development and to submit their written statements on the
processes for the record. These statements are attached to my statement, together
with a copy of a published review of the fourth. I hope the Committee will
approve the inclusion of them in the printed record of these hearings.
All four processes have some similarities and some basic differences. Because
of the.se, one or the other may have certain advantages in application to a
given power plant depending upon size, location, age and available space. But
all have in common the desirable advantage of upwards of ninety percent
elimination of sulfur oxide emissions. For your information I will briefly describe
the processes without any attempt to favor one over the others, although the
coal research agency which I represent carried out work in our laboratories
on one of the approaches and contributed financially to one other.
To fully iinderstand the technical problems involved, and to better appreciate
the cost, we mu.st keep in mind that even with a very high sulfur fuel the gases
emitted from a power plant stack contain very little sulfur oxides per cubic foot —
of the order of a couple of thousand parts per million. To remove the dilute
quantities of sulfur oxides we must first convert them chemically to another
material so a separation can be made. All four systems available do this, but in
a somewhat different manner.
One system is offered by Monsanto Chemical Company a large and well-known
chemical company, located in St. Louis, Missouri. Their process converts the
sulfuric oxides into -saleable sulfuric aicd. The principal advantage of the Mon-
santo process is that the chemical recovery of the sulfur values is self-sufficient ;
that is, no chemical reagents must be brought into the power plant. By use of a
catalyst and changes in the heat exchange cycle, a disposable liquid, sulfuric acid,
instead of an untouchable gas, sulfur dioxide, is produced. To reduce the idea to
commercial practice has required millions of dollars and the operation of a 15,000
KW pilot plant in Eastern Pennsylvania for two and one-half years. But the
necessary development work has been done and Monsanto is prepared to seU this
process and guarantee performance.
The second process has been developed by Commis.sion Engineering. Inc., whose
main offices are in Windsor, Conn. Combustion Engineering is one of the leading
suppliers of ix)wer boilers to the electric power industry — for both fossil and
atomic fuel firing.
The Combustion Engineering approach to sulfur oxide control differs consider-
ably from the Monsanto approach. First of all, no saleable product results. In
addition, a chemical reagent must be brought in to react with the sulfur oxides —
to change them into removable solids. But the end result is the same, removal of
both particulates and sulfur oxides from the exit gas stream. The process has
been proven feasible at a pilot installation in St. Louis and another at Lawrence,
Kansas. As Combustion Engineering has pointed out in public statements, they
are confident they can design and erect a recovery plant with a guaranteed sulfur
removal equivalent to that of burning 0.5 percent sulfur coal and a guaranteed
particulate removal of ninety-nine percent. Further, they have stated that
while they will guarantee this high level of recovery, they expect to do even
better.
One mid-west utility. Kansas Power and Light Company, has sufficient faith in
the process that they are incorporating it into the design of a new 430 MW plant
planned for operation in 1971. The decision of that Company is best expressed by
an official thereof who, in discussing their pilot test of the Combustion Engineer-
ing process and their future plans, said :
"As you can appreciate, I am sure, this has not been an easy road, and there
have been numerous detours, but it does look like we are going to be able to
224
accomplish what we set out to do. Retain the clean air in Kansas, and bum coal
at the same time."
The remaining two systems which are described in statements attached to my
written test have not quite reached the advanced state of commercial develop-
ment as that of Alonsanto and Combustion EJngineering. However, they are
nearly there and as the statements of the companies indicate, they are confident
of success in the near future.
Wellman-Lord Company, a prominent consulting firm in the phosphate fertilizer
plant field, has pilot tested a sulfur oxide recovery plant at a large Maryland
power station, and will start up another in New Jersey this year. Like Mon-
santo, this proeessi produce.^ a .saleable product — but conc-entrated sulfur di-
oxide instead of sulfuric acid. This product can be used directly or shipped
for ultimate conversion into sulfuric acid or fertilizer depending on markets in
the power plant vicinity. Unlike the Monsanto process, an alkalai reagent must
be introduced.
The final sulfur oxide recovery system described in the statements submitted
is under development by Chemical Construction Corporation, commonly re-
ferred to in the trade as Chemico. This company is one of the oldest and largest
chemical engineering firms in the world. For more than 50 years Chemico has
been designing and erecting major process plant installations for the chemical,
petrochemical and mineral process industries.
The Chemico sulfur oxide recovery process also produces a saleable product,
elemental siilfur. But the approach is unique in that the final product is not
evolved at the power plant. Recognizing that (1) electric power generating
plants are not in the chemical business nor interested in getting into it, and
(2) the economics of any sulfur recovery process will be primarily a function
of the size of the plant which produces a final chemical product, Chemico con-
ceives the total system as being in two parts. First, the power plant would be
supplied with a chemical reagent for use in scrubbing sulfur oxides from the
flue gases and, second, the used reagent would be shipped to a central processing
plant for recovery of sulfur values and regeneration of the reagent for return to
the i)ower plant. Under this system, one large reagent processing plant could
serve many small utilitie.s — and even some industrial plants — in the most eco-
nomic manner. As with the other three processes described, Chemico is ready
to move into full scale application and eliminate sulfur oxide pollution.
The four processes which I have briefly described have been developed by in-
dustry without financial support from government. It is estimated that fifteen
to twenty million dollars have been spent on them to date. A number of other
companies have processes in various stages of development. In addition the
National Air Pollution Control Administration of the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare is researching with public funds other feasible approaches
to sulfur oxide control. One of these, the use of dry alkalai additives, is cur-
rently undergoing large scale pilot test at a TVA power plant.
Gentleman, that concludes my description of what we believe are currently
available commercial processes and which, in at least two cases, the manufac-
turer is prepared to guarantee will eliminate the so-called "SO2 pollution prob-
lem." I have made only passing reference to cost. As the President in a recent
message to Congress stated, the cost of pollution control will be high. But the
processes for sulfur oxide recovery which we are calling to your attention today
are less costly than other solutions which have been suggested. These include the
use of natural gas and imported foreign fuels. As this Committee has acknowl-
edged, fossil fuels must be the source of energy for our power plants for many
years to come despite the expected growth in atomic power. We feel the means
are available to supply the needs without sulfur ix)llution by use of our vast re-
serves of coal, most of which is high in sulfur, through the application of the
processes I have described and others now under development by the National Air
Pollution Control Administration of HEW.
Still to be accomplished is the application of such processes to existing and
new power plants. When one considers the tremendous capital investment re-
quired for sulfur oxide control processes, the reluctance of the utility companies
to apply them is understandable. We believe the Federal government could stimu-
late more intere.st by applying the available systems to government-owned power
plants and by participating in the financing of installations at privately-owned
plants for demonstration purposes.
225
James R. Gabvey, President and Director of Research, Bituminous
Goal Research, Inc., Monroeville, Pa.
James R. Garvey, president and director of research of Bituminous Coal
Research, Inc., and vice president, research and engineering, National Coal
Association, received a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mining from the Ohio
State University in llWl. Since then, with the exception of four years during
World War II when he served in the Air Force, he has been associated with the
coal industry in mining and in research.
He joined Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., in 1946, as a development engineer,
rising to supervising engineer, assistant director of research, director of research
in 1958, and president in 1963. As president of BCR, he has the primary respon-
sibility for the development and execution of the cooperative research program
of the coal and related industries. Early in 1966, the Board of Directors of Na-
tional Coal Association, of which BCR is an affiliate, elected him vice president,
research and engineering. In that capacity, he assumed the management of the
indusibry's cooperative engineering service program as well as its research.
Mr. Garvey is a member of the New York and American Academies of Science;
the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, and
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He is also a member of the
American Gas Association, International Briquetting Association, American As-
sociation for the Advancement of Science, and American Coke and Coal Chemicals
Institute. He has been an active member of committees of these societies, serv-
ing as chairman of several of them.
Mr. Garvey's service to the state and federal governments has been extensive.
On appointment by Governor Scranton and reappointment by Governor Shafer,
he has served on a Pennsylvania Advisory Committee on Pneumoconiosis. At the
federal level, he serves on the General Technical Advisory Committee to the OflSce
of Coal Research, U.S. Department of Interior ; is a member of the Environmental
Pollution Panel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and is a member of the Na-
tional Air Quality Advisory Committee of the U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare.
In addition to mining engineering, his experience includes design and develop-
ment of coal-handling and coal-burning equipment for residential, commercial,
and industrial markets and technical supervision of coal utilization research cov-
ering a wide scope. He holds several i>atents on coal-combustion equipment and
is the author of many professional impers covering research and engineering
application in these fields.
In 1963, Mr. Garvey received the Percy NichoUs Award. This award is pre-
sented annually by the Fuels Division, ASME, and Coal Division, AIME, for
notable scientific and industrial achievement in the field of solid fuels research.
Statement of Robert H. Quig, P.E., Engineer-Utility Operations, Chemical
Construction Corp.
chemico and its affiliates
Mr. Chairman : Chemical Construction Corporation, or as it is better knoT\Ti —
ChemicH) — is an architect, engineers and construction firm of large chemical com-
plexes and pollution control systems in the U.S.A. and around the world. Chemico
designed plants account for :
30% of world sulfuric acid production through 237 plants ;
20% of world ammonia production through 106 installations ;
25% of world urea production.
Chemico's Pollution Control Division has in operation or under construction
over 1,000 systems in the chemical, oil refining, pulp and paper, smelting, steel
and most recently utility industries. Chemico is afiiliaited as a sister organization
with Ebasco Services, Inc., who are architect-engineers of utility power plants.
Chemico has associated itself with Ba.sie Chemicals of Cleveland, Ohio, to form
a joint venture company for the removal and recovery of SO2 from stack gas as
a salable product. Basic has developed numerous applications for the use of mag-
nesium oxide in agriculture, pai)er processing and pollution control. The joint
venture company is called Chemico- Basic and its main purpose is to promote the
use of magnesium based scrubbing for SO2 recovery in the electric utility and
other pertinent industries. Since the removal and recovery of SO2 is more than a
sole desired function of the power plant operator, this joint venture company will
226
coordinate and make arrangememts for the nece.'jsary integration of the utility
and c-heniical industries.
While Chemico is prepared to offer SO2 recovery programs to the utility indus-
try, it is also prepared and is now offering SO2 control programs for tlie disi>osal
of waste materials. We recognize that the decision of a utility to enter into
recovery or disposal of SO2 must be made within the framework of economical
marketing of the recovered SO2 in certain geographical areas. Scrubbing of the
SO2 from stacks utilizing low-co.st calcium additives for disposal may very well be
the cheapest solution in many instances.
I would like to dedicate the remainder of this .statement to the recovery of SO2
utilizing the concept of centralized recovery oi^e rations.
FACTORS FOB AND AGAINST SO2 RECOVERY
The decision to recover SO2 from stack gas will be made as an economical alter-
native to the potential land waste problems associated with di.spo.sal of calcitmi
sulfite/sulfate and fly-ash materials obtained from dry and wet collection sys-
tems. This is especially true in the densely populated and heavily industrialized
sections of the country where disposal areas are limited.
SO2 recovery, while being an improvement over a disi>osal c-ondition in mosit
cases, still needs refinements itself. To date, the ba.sic problem involved with SO2
recovery from stack gas is that while the SO- is present in sufficient quantities
to be considered an air pollution problem, it is not great enough from any single
stack to be an efficient and economical source of sulfur.
Figure #1 illut^trates this problem. The concentrations of SO2 emitting from a
stack are very small, but the gas cleaning systems reipiired to absorb or ab.sorb
the gas musit, of necessity, be constructed to handle the total gas volume of 100%
boiler output. If the SO2 recovery section of the total control .system is also located
between the boiler and the .stack, it too mu.st be designed for 100% ouput con-
ditions. This creates an undesirable situation of sulfur recovery economics at
each individual SO2 emission source not only being a function of unit load factor,
but also power plant size and sulfur content of fuels burned.
FIG.I- THE EFFECT OF LOAD FACTOR
UPON SO2 RECOVERY REVENUE
100%
80%
-►SO2 RECOVERY SYSTEM DESIGN LEVEL*-
/
60%4j \ DECLINING LOAD FACTOR CURVE
40%-
20%-
I S OR
^ PRODUCT RECOVERY
*. REVENUE CURVE
^ —I 1 1 1 1 1 1—
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
FOSSIL FUEL STEAM GENERATING UNIT LIFE- YEARS
227
Based on past, present and estimated future performance, it is generally ac-
cepted that the average annual load factor of a fossil burning unit will assume
a pattern as described in Figure #1. Thus, it is noticeable that even in the early
life of the generating unit, the best annual load factor will hardly ever exceed
807f . After the seventh or eighth year of operation, the load factor will then begin
to decline with an increasing rate- Assuming that the average sulfur content
of the fuel remains relatively fixed and sulfur product marketing conditions do
not change, the declining load factor curve will represent the diminishing prod-
uct recovery revenue curve. This same problem exists in the very early life of the
unit when start-up problems keep the unit off the line or forced to operate at
reduced loads.
It is clear then that the impact of declining load factor plus the added com-
plexities of a utility being in the chemical business require further thought as to
the best SO2 modus operandi for the utility. Chemico feels that, while the SO2
removal system being designed for the gas volume associated with full load con-
ditions cannot be avoid, the SO2 recovery operation can be restructured so that it
is a meaningful and economical source of sulfur products. The concept which
we refer to is that of centralized recovery.
PROCESS FOR THE CONCEPT CENTRALIZED SO2 RECOVERY
Chemico envisions that sulfur dioxide, eflflciently removed from boiler flue gas
by the application of proven scrubbing techniques, may be effectively and eco-
nomically recovered at one centralized process plant. This central concept of
recovery then allows many SO2 emitters in a given geographical region to con-
solidate their pollution control efforts into one effective recovery operation. This
is in lieu of constructing many small inefficient chemical plants at each power
plant site : whose economics are, of necessity, directly related to the size and load
factor of the power plant as well as the sulfur content of fuels burned. The SO2
scrubbing system at the power plant is utilized simultaneously for over 90%
removal of fly-ash.
Fig. II illustrates the concept of consolidating "captured" SO2 emissions from
many sources in a region at one centralized recovery complex. These "captured"
emissions are in the fonn of magnesiimi sulfite crystals obtained from the aqueous
scrubbing of flue gases using solutions of SO2 absorbing materials such as mag-
nesium oxide- The crystals of magnesium sulfite are then removed from the
scrubbing system in an anhydrous form and forwarded to the central recovery
plant. At the recovery plant, these cry.stals may be processed to elemental sulfur
or sulfuric acid. Ultimate business and marketing evaluations w^ill determine the
best products to recover. The conversion of magnesium sulfite for recovery is
accomplished by utilizing calcining or fluid bed techniques. Figure III further
describes this. A concentrated but manageable SO2 gas stream is generated for
introduction into a conventional sulfuric acid plant. Essentially this is no differ-
ent than the conventional processes for the recovery of .sulfuric acid from metal-
lurgical roasting plants such as copper converters or smelters. A secondary proc-
ess reaction is the regeneration of the magnesium oxide for recycle back to the
utility scrubbing systems at the various power plants. The SO2 gas may also be
reduced directly to elemental sulfur.
228
■*Ti POWER PLANT
INDUSTRIAL PLANT
CENTRAL PROCESSING PLANT
MAGNESIUM SULFITE SALTS
REGENERATED MAGNESIUM OXIOE
229
230
ADVANTAGES OF THE CENTRAL RECOVERY PLANT
The major advantages of a centralized sulfur recovery oi)eration are believed
to be :
1. With the exception of producing magnesium sulfite in a dried transiK>rtable
condition, the capitalization and operation of chemical recovery processing is
divorced from power plant activity.
2- One central process plant strategically located could provide recovery for
500O-7500 MW or more of power plant capacity. At the same time it could also
provide recovery activity for smaller industrial customers Avho would have no
hope of achieving economical sulfur recovery as an alternate to solid waste dis-
po.sal. The small industrial plants would enjoy the results from economies of
scale created by the large central .stations.
3. EJconomies of scale and good process efficiency may be obtained by one large
chemical complex which is sized for the SQ2 emitting from the average load fac-
tor of the system it services.
4. One large recovery plant, owned and managed by companies knowledgeable
in chemical industry oi>erations and marketing would be a formidable and com-
petitive source of sulfur. The central plant would be able to sustain sulfur mar-
ket fluctuations with greater capability than many small recovery plants could
do individually.
5. Fuel suppliers as a joint venture effort with chemical producers and mar-
keters could establish the recovery plant in return for long-term fuel contracts
with utility and industrial fuel consumers.
6. Central process in concept is not foreign to utilities since they already have
inter-relationships with power pooling over their transmission grid networks.
Many utilities today are sharing the investment burden for new generating
facilities.
7. The participating utilities as "sulfur donors" may elect, if desired, to have
an equity position in the recovery plant.
8. Most important, the historical lines of conventional and economical fuel
supply would not be interrupted by the pressure of SO2 laws. Low sulfur fuels
could then be diverted to very small consumers such as high-rise apartments or
shopping centers.
COSTS FOR CENTRALIZED SO2 RECOVERY
The utilities and other industrial organizations who must control SO2 are
expected to assume the capitalization and operation of the total scrubbing system
for SOi; and fly-ash removal which includes all process steps at the power plant
site necessary to get the magnesium sulflte into a transportable condition. Cap-
italization estimates for this indicate that a range of $5-7/kw may be expected
for a new powder plant and $6-9/kw should be exi>ected for a retrofit operation
(1969 pricing basis). Operating co.sts including capitalization for these scrubbing
systems are expected not to exceed $1/T of coal or 25(;^A>bl of oil burned. No
credits are included for avoiding the use of electrostatic precipitators or the
utilization of short stacks. See Figure IV for comparable figures escalated to
1975.
231
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
ESCALATED TO 1975
COAL VS. NUCLEAR UNITS
q:
u
Q.
t-
{/)
o
o
350-
300-
250.
200-
i5G ■
100
•\.
NOTE
I. MEAN AVERAGE COST FOR INITIAL UNITS
Z DEVIATION FOR SPECIFIC PROJECT: -10.* B%
NUCLEAR
source: ebasco
COAL- FLY ASH 8 SOz REMOVAt*^ ^
ALKALI SULFITE TO CENTRAL
PROCESS
SOURCE ; CHEMICO
t5/KW
■COAL- FLY ASH REMOVAL ONLY
source: EBASCO
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
UNIT SIZE -MW
In return, the central recovery plant, if made large enough, say, 1000 T/day
of sulfuric acid will be completely self-sustaining oi)eration sufficient for a third
party to realize a rate of return consistent with chemical industry practices.
This third party could very ivell he the fuel supplier. Magnesium sulfite from the
power plant scrubbing systems will be "donated" to the recovery plant in direct
exchange for regenerated alkali with makeup supplied on a "free" basis.
A 1000 T/day acid plant can be "supported" by approximately 3000 MW of
power plants which burn approximately 2.5% S fuel and have a system load
factor of 65%. This large acid plant including off-sites would require approxi-
mately an $8,000,000 investment and can produce sulfuric acid in a cost range
of $l()-$12/ton.
PRIOR TESTING WORK IN PROGRESS FUTURE
Chemico has conducted pilot plants for fly-ash and .SO2 testing at seven differ-
ent power plants and a sulfuric acid plant. The reduction of SO2 can be guar-
anteed at 90% or better. Fly-ash removal can be guaranteed in excess of 99%.
SO2 recovery as a guaranteed process for yield and operating economics must
I still be considered elusive until prototype plants are operated — we are presently
' planning to build such a prototype system sized for a 150 MW generating unit.
Chemico is working with a consortium of four private utilities, an international
I oil supplier, the National Coal Association, a leading chemcal company and the
Natonal Air Pollution Control Administration to complete final plans and financ-
ing for this prototype project.
Under construction by Chemico is a large 150 MW equivalent venturi scrubbing
*l system on an eastern utility boiler designed for fly-ash removal initially with
provision for future SO2 control, if desired.
232
Recently announced by the Arizona Public Service Company is APS plans for
Cheniico to design, engineer and construct a fly-ash now — future SO2 scrubbing
system for 575 MW.
CONCLUSION
We at Chemico conclude that work by us and the other fine organizations, Mon-
santo, Combustion Engineering and Wellman-Lord will enable SO2 control to be
achieved in a manner which will not upset the historic fuel consumption patterns
in this country.
Much still needs to be done. A major problem is the financing of these large
demonstration projects to convince and give confidence to industry that SO2 con-
trol is economically attainable. This may and should require a reassessment of
R&D priorities in federal grants, etc. SO2 control to date, has been at the bottom
of the list.
For the purpose of record, we at Chemico believe that SO2 control is available
now.
Modified SO2 system faces new tests
Sustained operation under three types of limestone
injection is goal for Combustion Engineering wet scrubber
system at Kansas Power & Light's 125-Mw Lawrence 4
Operatioi] of an air polution control
system (sulfur and particulate re-
moval) under three types of limestone
injection, and sustained operation at
or exceeding guarantees are objectives
this fall and winter at the Lawrence
Power Station of Kansas Power &
Light Co. These plans were revealed
recently by D. M. Miller, KPL's man-
ager of electric production, in a status
report on the wet scrubber system in-
stalled on the 125-Mw No. 4 unit at
Lawrence (EW, March 4, 1968, p 35).
Modifications in the system since oper-
ation began late last year will be in-
corporated into a similar sulfur-re-
moval system for the station's 430-Mw
No. 5 unit now under construction.
Miller first told of these minor prob-
lems encountered on initial operation
with the limestone-injection wet-scrub-
ber system : Severe vibration of the ID
fan duct at reduced load levels, cor-
rected by changing the operating mech-
anisms on inlet dampers originally
installed "in reverse"; high pressure
differential across the scrubber's mar-
ble bed and excessive a^ carryover,'
eliminated by removing "construction,
dirt" from water spray nozzles immedi-
ately below affected areas; and buildup
of fiyash cement by eddying of mois-
ture into the scnibber inlet duct. Lad-
der baffles under the marble bed in
the inlet plenum and baffles and flow
guides above the reheaters were in-
stalled to improve gas flow distribution.
This l^t modification also allowed the
unit to carry up to 90% of load with-
out excessive ash carryover to the re-
heat coils in the scrubber. Also, tem-
porary air soot-blowing lances below
the reheat coils are used to maintain
clean coils without water washing as
previously planned.
A low level of effluent pH in the
marble bed overflow caused advanced
corrosion in the bed overflow pots,
unpainted piping and scrubber tank
bottom. Overflow pots and drains were
replaced using PVC components, while
the scrubber bottom was given a 2-in.
To stock
— U.J
Oeloy and
mixing tonk . — >
fe"
Cleon
recycle
Oispoall
poiKJ
Modification* to Increase sulfur removal include (1) recycling and retention of spray
reject water and (2) direct discharge of bed overthrow to disposal pond. These
changes will promote reactivity between sulfur oxides and calcined limestone
gunite lining over a heavy bitumastic
coating. Analysis of pH values through-
out the scrubber clearly indicated that
reactive (limestone) materiab were
not getting into the bed area. This was
due to drop-out of heavier particles of
ash and lime dust in the inlet plenum
below the marble bed.
The air pollution control system on
the No. 4 unit is designed to remove
99% of particulates and 83% of sul-
fur oxides (under conditions in ac-
companying table). But during initial
operation the pulverizer did not reject
a 1 % suUur-equivalent of pyrites from
the coal-limestone mixture. Coal as
fired averaged over 3% sulfur. How-
ever, concentrations of SO2 at the
scrubber inlet were equivalent to 2%
sulfur coal, supporting the expected
30% reduction by furnace reaction.
Conditions at the scrubber outlet av-
eraged the equivalent of 1% sulfur
coal.
Although guarantee and acceptance
tests are incomplete, preliminary read-
ings on stack discharge indicate a par-
ticulate removal exceeding 99%.
For greater removal of SOo, a test
was made of recycling the solution in
the effluent tank back to the marble
bed; results proved affirmative. Sub-
sequent tests of pumping and recycling
modes led to further improvement in
SO2 removal. Additionally, powdered
limestone was injected at the furnace
arch level (gas temperatures of 2,000
to 2,20OF) for less over-burning and
a more readily reactive material at the
scrubber. The combination of recycling
and direct injection allowed the hold-
ing of SOo concentration at the stack
to a mean of 250 ppm during a test
run of almost two days.
Based on these and other tests, it
was decided by KPL in conjunction
with Combustion Engineering, designer
of the system, to make these changes
in the handling of effluent and reactive^
materials:
1. Bed (or pot) overflow is pip
separately from inside the scrubber I
the effluent (drain) tank and then di\
rectly into the settling pond. This wat(
has a pH of 5.8 to 6.4.
2. Spray-nozzle-reject water that fal
through the plenum under the maibh
bed is collected in a separate delay i
mixing tank, sized for about a i-
holding time. This water then recycles
to above the marble bed where it 1
comes a part of the violent action 1
the fluidized bed.
233
From Electrical World , December 8, 1969.
The recycle solution consists of bed
plate reject water and the reactive
limestone and ash materials which
drop directly from the flue gas stream
in the inlet plenum. This recyclemeten-
tion system is expected to yield a 250-
ppm further reduction in SOj at the
stack.
Though the flue gas handling system
is imchanged, KPL is installing perma-
nent air soot blowers in the scrubber
itilet to help move solid materials into
the unit and to further minimize the
wet-dry interface problem. Addition-
ally, permanent air soot blowers will be
installed at the reheater to keep it
clean. And, unrelated to the scrubber
modiflcations, two more air soot blow-
ers (for a total of 9) will be installed
in the furnace superheat-reheat pass
to keep injected material and ash mov-
ing through the furnace. It is planned
to leave 50% of the scrubber reheat
surface out of service, as its effect on
plume rise is not great. Remaining
surface will still give a 25F reheat to
keep the ID fan dry and cledn.
The limestone injection system has
been modified to make three methods
of injection available on the 125-Mw
unit:
1. Limestone and coal mixed on the
belt to the bunker are pulverized and
injected at all burners. This mode,
planned initially, allows full-load oper-
ation of the imit, but its associated
extreme calcining temperature yields .
the least reactive material at the wet
scrubber. Also, the 1-hr detention time
for the reject spray water will not re-
sult in the reactivity of all available
material. Nevertheless, this mode is
expected to approximate SO2 removal
guarantees.
2. Inject pulverized limestone only
through the top burners at each comer
of the boiler and coal only in the other
burners. This method permits opera-
tion only up to 90% of full load be-
cause a pulverizer is used to grind the
limestone. However, it separates the
limestone feed from the main flame
and thus provides more reactive mate-
rial at the scrubber. It is expected that
this method will meet SO2 removal
guarantees.
3. Inject limestone (pulverized inde-
pendently of the unit) through sep-
arate injection nozzles at the top gas
burner locations in each comer of the
boiler. Nozzles will be angled to inject
the limestone high into the furnace for
calcining, thus minimizing overbuming
and providing a maximum of reactive
material at the scrubber. Based on test
performance, this method offers not
only full-load operation but also SO2
removal in excess of guarantee (350
ppm SO2 in effluent gas).
For the air pollution control system
being installed on the 430-Mw No. 5
unit, limestone will be pulverized in an
adjacent unit. Limestone will be in-
jected into the coolest location in the
fumace as is practical to reach. Flue
gas and material will follow a normal
path through the fumace, i.e., from the
air heater into a plenum and through
six wet scrubber marble beds, the dem-
ister and reheater, and then to the ID
fan and out the stack. A 25F pickup
in the scmbber reheater is planned.
The bed overflow water will be sep-
arated and flow by gravity to the set-
tling pond. Plate reject water and ma-
terial collected under the marble bed
will flow to detention tanks for re-
cycling above the activated 'bed. It is
fully expected that the system on the
larger unit will be reliable, avaUable
for continuous operation, and capable .
of meeting SO2 and particulate re-
moval guarantees.
Design conditions for
sulfur removal system
Coal Supply:
12,300 Btu/lb
3.4% Sulfur
12.5% Ash
Limestone injection:
13% by weight (of coal fired)
PyrKe rejection by pulverizer:
Equivalent to 1% sulfur
Fumace reaction:
20 to 30% of sulfur oxides to
combine in dry furnace reaction,
remainder in wet scrubber
Guarantees:
Removal of 83% of sulfur oxides
and 99% of particulates
234
Statement of Stuabt Watts, Wellman-Lord, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, in June, 1969, Wellman-Lord presented a paper at the National
Air Pollution Control Association meeting in New York City. This paper covered
the economic reasons for and technical development of our potassiuin sulphite
based iSO:; recovery system, and reiKvrted on initial results of the commercial
demonstration plant for the process which is the Maryland Clean Air Project.
In preparing this second report, we have for clarity recapped the June report
and added the following information to bring you up to date on the status of
our work..
1. A summary of results and experience on the Maryland Clean Air Plant
regarding pollution control with the potassium system.
2. New information on our first full commercial plant which removes SO2
from the sulfuric acid plant tail gas. This plant is based on our .sodium sulphite
system.
3. A comparison of the potassium and sodium systems and which look most
promising.
4. Plans for commercialization in Japan.
Summary. — In cooperation with the utility industry and certain chemical
companies, Wellman-Lord has worked on the development and commercialization
of SO2 pollution control systems for over three years. The basic technique u.sed
is absorption of the SO2 present in stack gases in an alkali salt solution, followed
by recovery of the ab.«orbed SO2 and continuous recycle of the solution. Develop- j
ment emphasi.s was placed on producing a salable form of sulfur as liquid SO2,
strong sulfuric acid, or element .sulfur. Two technically similar absorption j
processes have been studied — one uses a potassium salt solution, and the other
a sodium salt. Both produce SO2 as an end product. The SO: can be converted to
strong H2SO4 by standard technology, and additional investigations are underway
to reduce the SO2 to elemental sulfur or alternately produce elemental sulfur
directly from the absorption process instead of SO2. Progress to date can bej
summarized as follows :
1. In a joint venture with the Tampa Electric Company a one megawatt pilot!
plant was operated on the potas.sium system in April through September 1967]
at their Gannon Station. Results proved the process to be chemically feasible^
and indicated good process economics.
2. The Maryland Clean Air Project was develoi>ed as a 25 megawatt demon-
stration plant for the potassium system and the plant started up in January]
1969 at Baltimore Gas and Electric's Crane Station. Operating results proved*]
decisively that this approach can remove over 90% of the SO2, SO3 and particulate]
in the flue gas and is therefore effective from a pollution control standpoint.!
Certain mechanical problems were encountered, particularly in the final S0:|
compression section, which limited the operating factor of the test program, butJ
these problems were either corrected or solutions have been identified whicbj
can be employed at a future date. Based on the Baltimore operating exiwriencei
an improved design for the particulate pre-scrubber is being evaluated, witbj
the objective of removing more of the fly-ash in the pre-scrubber and less irrl
the in-line centrifuge. The biggest disappointment was in steam economy. Low!
pressure steam requirements for SO2 stripping appeared to be over twice as]
high as we had hoped for. Therefore, unless a solution to this problem can b^
developed, investment and operating costs for the pota.s.sium system will hi
higher than our projections from the TECO tests.
3. Early in 1968 we began preliminary studies on a sodium based absorptioi
system. Certain advantages over potassium became apparent, particularly fo|
small plants, and where SO2 concentrations in the gas to be treated exceede
about 0.3 per cent. In early 1969 we evaluated both the potassium and sodiui
systems for reducing SO- emission from Olin Chemical's 700 TPD H2S04 planj
in Paulsboro, New Jersey. The sodium system showed significant advantages anc
in July 1969 we were awarded a firm price contract to install this system. Recov^
ered SO2 is reused in the H2SO4 plant and SO2 concentration in the clean gas i^
guaranteed to be less than 500 ppm. Engineering design is complete and has beei
based on unit operation pilot tests in suppliers' laboratories . . . plant start-u|
is scheduled before June 1, 1970.
In summary, we can compare the design basis and operating experience of th^
Maryland Clean Air Plant (postassium) with the Olin Chemicals plant (sodium)
and believe that the sodium design is the most economical. The experience gaint
at MOADP was of direct use in the Olin design and is the basis for our confidence
in the sodium system. Advantages of sodium are elimination of a separate stear
235
stripping section (reduces capital investment), lower steam usage, and a simpli-
fied over-all operation. The MCA plant has been temporarily shut down pending
the results on the Olin plant. If projected performance is obtained, the sodium
system will be recommended for utility application.
In addition to these projects, Wellman-Lord is evaluating two approaches for
production of elemental sulfur, using the absorption process as a first step. One
involves direct reduction of KzSsOfe crystals where we have a pilot plant installed
in Lakeland, and the second relates to application of provel technology for reduc-
ing SO: gas to sulfur. Also, negotiations are imderway by our Japanese licensees
(Mitsubishi and Sumitomo) to install the Wellman-Lord system which has been
selected as one of three government-sponsored 150 MW demonstration units in
Japan.
Abstract of Paper Presented Bbtfore National Air PoLLtmoN Control
Association in New York City, June, 1969
(By Stuart G. Watt, Executive Engineer, Wellman-Lord, Inc. )
The Wellman-Lord SO2 recovery process is based on absorption of SO2 in
potassium sulfite solution, crystallization of K2S2O5 from this solution, and
conversion of K2S2O0 to KHSO3 by dissolving the crystals in water. SO2 is stripped
from the KHSO3 solution and can be used as a gas or compressed for shipment.
The 3-year development program included a 1 megawatt pilot plant at Tampa
Electric's Gannon Station and a 25 Megawatt demonstration plant in operation
at Baltimore Gas and Electric's Crane Station. Technical and economic perform-
ance have been promising. Tests have been conducted at a metallurgical smelter
and this process concept has wide application. An alternate sodium sulfite system
is available. Pilot plant tests to produce elemental sulfur are in progress.
I A. general background
Wellman-Lord's basic business has been design, engineering, and construction
of agricultural mining and chemical complexes and related facilities. In 1965
and 1966 we were involved in tlie planning stages of agricultural projects which
were limited by a sulfur shortage. Although current supply/demand on sulfur
shows increasing availability, we had seen price escalations of nearly 80%
during the past few years. Government sources give the following quantities of
sulfur potentially available from stack emissions :
Sulfur (tons
Source per year) Percent
Coal combustion -.-. - I'9)>J'929 Si"?
Petroleum combustion. .-- ^' c^'xSS ?o o
Other industrial (including smelting) -- - 2,257,000 18^
Total _-_ - - 11,680,000 100.0
The total sulfur consumed in seulfuric acid is about 9,000,000 tons per year, so
it is apparent that an economic SO2 recovery process could provide an effective
alternate sulfur source, providing logistics are reasonable. We have mapped
sulfur emission versus the H2SO4 use, by state, and there are many areas where
emission and use are in close proximity.
Following a state of the art review of existing recovery processes, we began
research in June 1966 to develop a process which would both control SO2 pollution
and recover valuable sulfur. Design objectives (and how they were achieved)
were as follows :
1. End Product.— Should be either pure SO2 or sulfur which have wide market
acceptance, can be economically transferred over long distances, and are not tied
to a single market. The Wellman-Lord process makes pure SO3 and we have two
methods in the pilot plant stages to produce elemental sulfur.
2. Efficient Pollution Control— Tests to date indicate removal of over 90% of
I SO2, SO3, and fly ash leaving electrostatic precipitators (utilities) .
3. Liquid System. — Our experience with liquid versus fluosolid systems indi-
cates liquid is much easier to control, operate, and maintain. We, therefore, based
our development on liquid scrubbing systems, which are the basis for our process.
236
4. Common Chemical — Regenerative. — Our processes are based on either KOH
or NaOH as starting materials for the sulfite, which are widely available from
competitive sources, and of uniform, well established quality. System regenera-
tion is positive, in solution form, and chemical makeup is a minimum.
5. Secondary Polution/ Disposal. — There are no solid or large liquid streams
to dispose of in our process.
6. Proven Process Equipm^ent. — Equipment is well proven for use in the chem-
ical industries. The basic unit operations of absorption, crystallization, filtra-
tion, and steam stripping are involved.
7. Variable Stack Conditions. — The absorption process can handle varying
SO2 concentrations and gas flows because of its relatively high inherent turn-
down ratio.
8. Fuel Benefits. — Because of an economic base which favors high SO2 produc-
tion, in fuel burning units, high sulfur fuel improves economics. Similarly, when
the process is used to remove SO2 from industrial units (such as H2SO1 plant)
where the capacity of industrial plant can be increased by permitting higher
SO2 in gas, the Wellman-Lord process can be designed to recover this higher
gas strength.
B. PROCESS DESCRIPTION POTASSIUM SYSTEM
The chemistry of SO2 absorption in potassium salt systems has been studied
for nearly 40 years with one of the basic problems being the high steam re-
quirement to strip and recover the SO2 from the resulting solution of potassium
sulfite (K2SO3) and potassium bisulfite (KHSO3). However, if a nearly pure
solution of KHSO3 could be obtained (without K2SO3 present), the partial pres-
sure of SO2 above this solution is very high and consequently the SO2 could be
stripped out with very low steam requirements. This is illustrated by the partial
pressure diagram in Figure 1. Development of a simple method to obtain a pure
KHSO3 solution, then became one of the key points of our process. This was
accomplished by developing a method to crystalize potassium pyrosulfite crystals
(K2S2O5) out of a complex potassium salt solution. The crystals are filtered and
when redissolved in water give the high purity KHSO3 solution required for
low cost steam stripping. Our process has three basic unit operations — absorption
crystallization, and steam stripping.
Absorption Section
The absorber section is comprised of a specially designed prescrubber to
remove particles of fly ash. and an absorption column where the SO2 is absorbed
in the sulfite solution. Principal reactions are :
1. 2KOH+SO2 KsSOs-fHsO
2. K2SO3+SO2+H2O 2KHSO3
The prescrubber operates at low pressure drop and a water rate of less than
0.2 gpm per 1,000 cubic feet of g'as treated. In utility operations, a high per-
centage of the SO3 present in the gas is adsorbed on the fly ash surface and leaves
with the small fly ash slurry to waste disposal. The sulfite solution absorbs over
90% of the SO2 in the original flue gas and the gas: leaves the stack at 140° F.
unsaturated. The overall pressure drop across the absorber circuit is less than
8 inches of water.
Crystallization Section
The sulflte solution is cooled in a vacuum crystallizer and K2S2O6 crystallizes
out as follows :
cool
2KHSO3 > K2S205-f-H20
The crystals are filtered and the mother liquor is recycled to the process. The
pure pyrosulfite is dissolved in H2O to form the KHSO3 for stripping.
Stripping Section
The KHSO3 solution is pumped counter-currently through steam stripping
columns where SO2 vapor comes off the top of the column and the stripped
solution is recycled to the absorber.
2KHSO3 > K2S03-FH20-f-S02
A
As the bisulfite is converted to sulfite, the partial pressure of SO2 in the solu-
tion decreases very rapidly. The steam consumption for stripping is dependent
237
on the number of stages used, but we are projecting consumption las 4 to 8
pounds iJer pound of SO2. The SO2 and steam vapor, discharged overhead from
the column, are fed to a heat exchanger to condense most of the steam. Depend-
ing upon the end use for the product, the SO2 can either be used as a gas or
compresvsed for shipment.
C. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
The chemistry of the process described was confirmed in our laboratories in
late 1966 and a program was outlined for pilot plant testing. In a joint venture
with Tampa Electric Company, approximately $300,000 was allocated for con-
struction and operation of a 1 megawatt pilot plant at their Gannon Station in
Tampa, Florida. Operation began in April 1967 and was successfully concluded
in September 1967. Problems with fly ash removal were recognized early in the
program and a special pre-scrubber was designed to clean the gas before it
contacts the solution. Basic process chemistry was demonstrated on a continuous
basis and results on K2S2OB crystal growth were encouraging.
Successful operation at a larger scale, and on a continuous basis were necessary
before any firm design could be made for a full scale utility. It was decided that
a 25 megawatt unit would provide design information which could be scaled up
reliably for larger power plants. The Maryland Clean Air Project was developed
as a 25 megawatt demonstration plant for this process with the following partic-
ipants :
The W. R. Grace Company (operates demonstration plant)
Baltimore Gas & Electric Company
Potomac Electric Power Company
Delmarva Power & Light Company
Potomac Edison Company
The Bechtel Corporation
Wellman-Lord, Inc.
The project is installed at Baltimore Gas and Electric's Crane Station in Bal-
timore. This $2,000,000 demonstration unit started up on schedule January
1969 and the operating and test programs conducted to date have been en-
couraging. Results on basic process chemistry continue to be very satisfactory
and a number of design modifications have been made to improve operating
factors. All unit operations have been tested through production of liquid SO2
and optimization of the total circuit is in progress. An extensive test program
in the prescrubber section has minimized problems encountered with fly ash
during the start up phase, and identified methods of removing various types
of fine solids depending upon their chemical composition and size distribution.
Over 90% of the SO2 has been consistently removed from the flue gas with fly
ash removal as high as 98%. There have been extended test runs through
production of gaseous SO2. We are currently modifying the compression step
and studying overall steam balance.
In addition to the projects at Tampa Electric's Gannon Station and Baltimore
Gas and Electric's Crane Station, test work has been conducted at two other
utility stations covering both fuel oil and coal fired units. These latter tests
used a portable test unit of the prescrubber and absorber only. This portable
unit is available for testing with other clients.
In the metallurgical area, the portable unit was tested on smelter ofiF gases
in the western United States. During a three-week test, the following results
were obtained :
(a) From a 2.2% SO2 gas stream, SO2 recovery averaged 96%.
(b) Particulate rejection averaged 90%.
D. DEVELOPMENT STATUS
We expect to complete testing of the potassium sulfite process at the Mary-
land Clean Air Project within the next few months. At that time we plan to
convert the demonstration unit to a sodium based circuit and continue the
test program. Patents have been filed for on both processes. We are currently
prepared to offer either the sodium or potassium based circuits for immediate
application to small power stations, and certain industrial plants such as sul-
furic acid, in those cases where SO2 is to be used as a final product. Pending
the results of continuous demonstration tests, we will be able to begin firm
238
designs for large units by tlie end of 1969. We are studying two processes for
production of sulfur instead of SO2 from these systems. A pilot unit is in opera-
tion at our Lakeland oflSce and in the first stages of testing. Feed materials
for the Lakeland unit are shipped from the Maryland Clean Air Plant which
permits the results to be directly related.
Summary and Acknowledgements
Following nearly 3 years of development work, the technical and economic
feasibility of this approach to SO2 recovery is being successfully demonstrated.
Although there have been mechanical improvements as the program developed,
basic process chemistry has been unchanged since inception. There appears to
be a wide range of possible applications in the utility, industrial, and metal-
lurgical fields as an effective pollution control system. Economics are dependent
on the size of installation, the amount of SO2 or sulfur produced, and product
marketing. For medium utility stations using high sulfur fuel (or the equiva-
lent industrial plant) we are projecting at least a breakeven cost for the
operation. j
Wellman-Lord is totally indebted to the utility companies who gave their full
support and guidance throughout this program. Without this support and co-
operation, none of the development work would have been possible. We would
also like to acknowledge the financial, operating, and marketing assistance W. R
Grace and Company is providing for the Maryland Clean Air Project.
AIR POLLUTION— 1970
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1970
U.S. Senate,
SuBOOMMirrEE ON Air and Water Pollution
or THE Committee on Public Works,
Washington^ D.G.
The subcommittee met at 9 :30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200,
New Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas F. Eagleton (member of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Senator Eagleton.
Also present: Eichard B. Koyce, chief clerk and staff director;
Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk, minority; Thomas C. Jorling,
minority counsel; Leon G. Billings and Richard D. Grundy, pro-
fessional staff members.
Senator Eagleton. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.. The
Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollu-
tion, is now in session to continue its hearings on S. 3229, S. 3466, and
S. 3546.
Our first witness this morning was to have been the Governor of
Massachusetts, the Honorable Francis Sargent. Unfortunately, the
Governor is ill. He will be with us at a later date, presumably
tomorrow. . . .
Our next two witnesses are from the State of West Virginia.
Senator Jennings Randolph, the chairman of the full Public Works
Committee, is at another committee meeting, but he will be with us
later so that he can officially greet and introduce his constituents.
We will move on in his temporary absence, and call on Mr. Fred
Tucker, coordinator, industrial health engineering for National Steel
Corp.
STATEMENT OF FRED E. TUCKER, MANAGER, POLLUTION CONTROL
A2ffl> SERVICES, NATIONAL STEEL CORP.
Mr. Tucker. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution :
My name is Fred E. Tucker, manager, pollution control and services,
National Steel Corp.
I have appeared before this subcommittee on many occasions to
present testimony for the steel industry on legislation affecting air
and water quality.
I accepted with pleasure the invitation of the subcommittee of
March 5 to present testimony on S. 3229, S. 3466, and S. 3546 presently
being studied by your committee.
(239)
240
I can well remember when hearings held on this subject before this
committee went virtually unnoticed. Your committee is to be com-
mended for its foresight in anticipating national problems of air
and water quality long before the press or the public shared your
concern.
Legislation approved by your committee many years ago, although
heard in virtual public silence, has served the r^ation well and pre-
pared it to meet today's challenge.
Your efforts have also given us in industry who support air quality
control an opportunity to learn and prepare for today's challenge.
As early as 1965, the steel industry went on record supporting
environmental control legislation under study by the committee. My
statement today will be a positive one in support of legislation to
control and improve air quality in the United States.
Although I am aware of my industry's progress in environmental
control and note with pride an investment by steel companies of over
$1 billion in air and water quality control equipment, I will spend
little time in reflection on these accomplishments.
It should be recognized, however, that with the tremendous costs
involved for the required equipment to bring about pollution control,
special tax treatment should be afforded industry for this equipment.
The facts facing this committee today are that air quality in many
areas of this country needs to be improved to meet public health and
welfare criteria and that the people of this Nation look to Congress
to provide legislation which will effect such improvement.
Quite frankly, I have not had sufficient time since invited to appear,
to examine in detail the legislative proposals before your committee.
For this reason, I will limit my discussion to several basic questions
embodied in these proposals and request permission to submit addi-
tional statements later for the record on more specific items in the
legislation.
Senator Eagleton. We will make a part of the record, when received,
any additional material or statement you would like to submit.
Mr. Tucker. Thank you.
The points in the legislation I will speak to today concern national
air quality standards, national emission standards, penalties, class
action suits, and limitations on Federal contracts.
NATIONAL, AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
We support in principle the provisions of Senate bill 3466, section
107, for the establishment of National Air Quality Standards.
In 1967, our industry supported the provisions of S. 780, sponsored
by this committee, and later passed as the Air Quality Act of 1967,
which provided that the Secretary of HEW establish air quality
criteria to be used as guides for the States to adopt air quality stand-
ards in the various air quality control regions.
This concept, although legislatively sound, may well result in utter
chaos as a means of establishing air quality standards in these regions.
First, in an interstate region affecting two or more States it is
necessary for these States, meeting separately in public hearings, to
adopt air quality standards.
241
This is not only time-consuming for already overburdened State
staffs, but leads to controversy between the States if disagreement
occurs between standards.
Second, and perhaps most damaging, has been the appearance at
most hearings of groups of well-meaning but highly emotional, over-
zealous and sometimes uninformed persons who seem to be playing
a numbers game with air quality standards.
For example^ after much responsible study by Federal scientists,
a basic air quality criterion of 80 micrograms per cubic meter annual
average for suspended particulates, was recommended by the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Such a criterion is strict but can probably be achieved in most
metropolitan areas by enactment of properly tailored and enforced
State or regional emission standards as prescribed by the Air Quality
Act of 1967.
Then the numbers game be^an with one State reducing the number
to 75, then 70, and finally 65 m Cleveland, Ohio, recently following a
near-riot at its air quality standards hearing.
I recently read a publicity release from a so-called Breathers Alert
Lobby in another region saying "Cleveland got 65 — let's go for 60,"
The question is where will it all end and what will happen when
regions set these standards and are then frustrated to find they cannot
be met regardless of the emission controls adopted and met.
In regions with no industry and few inhabitants levels of 30 to 50
micrograms per cubic meter are common.
S. 3546 strives to close some of the gaps in standard-setting proce-
dures but does not go far enough to solve the basic problem.
In my testimony before this committee in 1967, 1 said the following :
The Clean Air Act gave HEW authority to formulate air quality criteria. This
authority . . . logically belongs with a national agency. Adverse air quality
that affects the health of people in Washington, D.C., will have the same effect
on people living in Chicago, Charleston, Hawaii, Detroit or any other area of
the United States.
Today, we hold the same opinion but in light of recent events, rec-
ommend that this legislation go one step further and give HEW au-
thority to set air quality standards for all contaminants.
EMISSION STANDARDS
We oppose all reference to Federal emission standards for stationary
sources found in section 112 of S. 3466. We are well aware that this
provision is intended to apply only to sources which "contribute
substantially to endangerment of the public health or welfare."
Such a limitation, however, is difficult to interpret depending as it
does on a subjective definition of words such as "substantial," "en-
dangerment," "public health," and "welfare."
We are convinced that this would lead to national emission standards
for all stationary sources.
It should be pointed out that our position on national emission
standards is not a protective one. Some areas of the country require
more restrictive controls than others to meet a specified air quality.
Just like the automobile, the "speed limits" on air pollution source
control must be adjusted to suit a specific environment.
242
On our new interstate highways the car is permitted to travel at 70
miles per hour, as it enters secondary roads, it is reduced to 50, and on
down to 15 miles per hour in school zones. The car itself is no more
or less hazardous on the superhighway than in the school zone; it
hasn't changed one bit. The environment in which it is located, how-
ever, has changed, and, thus, we decrease or increase speed limits to
suit the environment.
The same reasoning should apply to stationary air pollution sources.
Control of the source should be dictated by the environment, not the
source. Some regions of the country will require much more restrictive
emission controls than others to assure a standard air quality. I
For these reasons, we believe the present procedure for States in
air quality control regions to supply miplementation plans, including
emission standards, should be continued and given a fair chance to
work before we embark on new procedures for source control.
If we continue to draft and pass new legislative procedures before
existing procedures have a reasonable chance to work, we will never
develop workable procedures for air quality control.
To my knowledge, no regional implementation plan has been ap-
proved, let alone given a chance to work, since passage by the Congress
of the 1967 Air Quality Act.
In our opinion, present provisions for regional emission standards
based on the needs of that region will work ; we request that you give
them a chance to do so.
Section 108 (i) of S. 3546 requires certification by the Secretary
of new installations based on source control regulations issued by
the Secretary.
From a practical point of view, we see no way in which such a
provision can be implemented.
Judging by past experience, if the Secretary would do nothing more
than develop air quality standards, he would have his hands full. For
at least 5 years, the Secretary has had authority to issue air quality
criteria. During that period he has issued only two criteria documents :
One for suspended particulates and a second for sulfur oxides.
I understand, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, that three more docu-
ments were issued earlier this week.
To expect the Secretary to review and approve the thousands of
new buildings, structures, or other facilities subject to air quality
standards installed monthly in the United States would require staffs
of trained engineers which are simply not available. Most State staffs
are either prepared or getting prepared to perform this function.
State staffs should be permitted and required to certify that all new
installations will met emission standards established for their regions
under the Air Quality Act. Many States already require such
certification.
PENALTIES
Both S. 3466 and S. 3546 provide severe penalties for failure to
respond to provisions of the legislation. S. 3466 provides penalties for
violation of air quality standards under section 113 but only when
such violation results from failure to meet the States' or Secretary's
implementation plan.
243
\ fine of $10,000 per day seems unnecessarily severe. The procedure
proposed for levying fines under S. 3466, section 113, is preferred to
that found in S. 3546. , .
S 3546, on the other hand, prescribes a procedure for penalties
which is extremely complicated and somewhat confusing. It provides
fines starting at $10,000 and 6 months in jail and progresses on up to
$50,000 per day and 5 years imprisonment. ojo f^ nnn
Section 4(10) (b), page 13, of the bill, provides fines up to $25,000
per day for anyone who "knowingly violates any air quality
standards." . . . , . . , n 4.;^.,
I submit that unless you have a situation involving a single pollution
source, no one knowingly or unknowingly violates air quality
standards. , , . - . , ^. j. • i
Penalties can only be enforced on the basis of violation of implemen-
tation plans or emission standards, not air quality standards. Air
quality is a measure of the sum of all sources m a region and usually
cannot be identified with any single pollution source. , , ■,
If such severe penalties must be assessed, then let them be based
on matters which can either be proved or disproved on specific tacts,
not the circumstantial evidence of a violation of air quality standards.
S. 3466 offers a simple, direct penalty procedure which can be easily
enforced by Federal or State control agencies.
We believe that section 4(13) of S. 3546, which provides for private
civil actions, is inconsistent with the entire rationale ot the other
provisions of the bill and is subject to several legal objections.
Likewise, we feel that section 5 of the bill is objectionable because
it fails to provide procedural safeguards and is unnecessary and in-
consistent with the overall purpose of the act.
I am not qualified to comment on these points but our lawyers are
preparing a legal brief which we respectfuUy request be subsequently
submitted for the record. -, ^ • -, -..x.
Senator Eagleton. As stated earlier, any additional material, either
statistical, factual or legal, will be made part of the record.
Mr. Tucker. Thank you. , ., i ^i, ^
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it clear that we
have no desire to discourage strong legislation for Air Quality
Control. . T • n j: 4.-U
We want controls which will provide air quality m all areas ot the
United States which will adequate protect the health and welfare o±
all the people.
Bills pending before your committee today, however, are so coni-
plicated and designed to cover so many and varied conditions that it
passed, they may actually retard air quality control.
Many State agencies complain today that so much ot their stall s
time is devoted to hearings, testimony before commissions, and the
like, that they have little time left to control pollution. I know that
this problem exists for industry. ■ ^ ■,
We have so many regulations and regulatory bodies to satisfy al-
ready that we sometimes have little idea whether what we are doing
meets all existing requirements.
We have a Federal Air Quality Act on the books right now which
hasn't even begun to be implemented, and we now consider new legis-
lation to replace that which has not been given proper chance to work.
244
If for some reason you must draft new legislation, we implore you
to make it direct, simple, and effective. This is one of the reasons why
we propose national air quality standards. The Federal agency in
HEW is competent and staffed to meet this function. It is not staffed
to draft or enforce regional emission standards or to certify constriic-
tion plans for new control facilities in addition to air quality
standards.
Once the States are relieved of any responsibility to draft air
quality standards, they are, or can be made capable to adopt and
enforce regional emission standards and approve construction plans
to meet these standards.
Proposals for punitive fines and public suits are extremely com-
plicated and restrictive. As you are well aware, once our courts be-
come clogged with legal actions of this type, actual air quality im-
provement can be delayed for years.
A simple provision for fines against failure to meet implementation
plans seems adequate to assure completion of control facilities and
their continued efficient operation.
Specifically, we propose national air quality standards, State plans
for implementation, including emission standards on a State or re-
gional basis, penalties based on violation of implementation plans.
State certification of equipment, and a general simplification of pro-
cedures for air quality control.
My comments today were intended to suggest ways to simplify this
procedure and not in any way to weaken or delay action. We are ready
to meet our responsibility for air quality control wherever we operate
steelmaking or processing plants in the United States.
Senator Eagleton. Thank you, Mr. Tucker.
So as to clarify the record, are you speaking, sir, for your immediate
employer, the National Steel Corp., or are you a si^okesman for the
steel industry in general ?
Mr. Tucker. I am speaking as an employee of National Steel Corp.,
but, as in the past, w^e have endeavored to get the support of this state-
ment by other steel companies. Unfortunately, in this case, we didn't
have adequate time to contact all of them.
But I can say that a major percentage of the steel industry has
reviewed this statement and does support it.
Senator Eagleton. Can I be a bit more specific ? Would this state-
ment be endorsed by United States Steel, Jones-Laughlin, Bethlehem,
Republic, Kaiser, Inland ?
Mr. Tucker. Hoping that I don't leave any companies out, I have
contacted United States Steel, Bethlehem, Republic Steel, Armco,
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, Youngstown Sheet & Tube, Jones &
Laughlin, and, of course, my own company, and they do support the
testimony.
Senator Eagleton. Have you contacted Granite City Steel?
Mr. Tucker. Not as yet, sir.
(Since giving the statement endorsement has been received from
Granite City Steel.)
Senator Eagleton. That is near my State. I am quite parochial.
Mr. Tucker. They will be contacted tomorrow and I am reason-
ably sure that they will support the statement.
245
Senator Eagleton. I find this curious in your statement : So often
I hear from industrial spokesmen and commercial interests telling me
that they want the Federal Government to keep out of various thmgs.
For instance, you are from West Virginia. When we started on the
Coal Mine Safety Act, we were told by the coal operators at first to
leave it in the hands of the States, that they know how to handle these
things, that they are more familiar with the problem, and that Wash-
ington is too remote to make a decision binding on West Virginia and
Pennsylvania.
I am hearing now, for instance, from the insurance industry, telling
me that it would be dangerous for the Federal Government to get
involved in insurance; that the States are doing a hangup job in in-
surance; that they are really good regulators. Unfortunately, some of
these companies are going mider.
That is just one of those things.
Yet, in this instance, at least as far as National Air Quality Stand-
ards are concerned, industry — a significant portion of the steel indus-
try in particular — wants the intervention of the Federal Government.
To me that is curious. Do you find that curious ?
Mr. Tucker. I can easily understand how you would find it curious,
Senator. I hope that our industry is big enough to maintain a flexible
policy in looking at various legislation that is presented to us.
We have, unfortunately, seen a number of delays occur in the im-
plementation of the Air Quality Act since its passage in 1967.
We supported that act, and so we must share the blame for any
delays that were built into the legislation.
We simply feel that the adoption of the air quality criteria papers
presented to date as standards would speed up the implementation
of air quality control.
We have invested, as an industry, roughly a half billion dollars
in air quality control equipment. A large number of those installations
have been made in very recent years.
We have no idea, Senator, whether they are going to meet the emis-
sion standards that will be adopted or not. If they do not meet them,
then we perhaps have wasted a good deal of our limited financial
resources in order to install these facilities.
We would like to get on with the work of air quality control. We
would like to see the establishment of standards on air quality, and
we would like to see the implementation of emission plans and sched-
ules so w^e would know where we have to go.
We are getting quite confused as to what we should do where,
whether we are doing what needs to be done, and we would like
answers to these questions. We think those answers should be coming
very shortly.
Senator Eagleton. Let me pick up that thread from your statement.
In it you say :
Bills pending before your committee today, however, are so complicated and
designed to cover so many and varied conditions that if passed, they may actually
retard air quality control.
Let me submit to you this: You recommend that we scrap one of
the basic premises of the 1967 act, and now in 1970 go to national air
quality standards.
246
We are at the threshold now of the 1967 act gaining implementation.
Many regions have filed their standards and many are now in the
process of filing their implementation plans.
So we are on the threshold of something really being done, 3 years,
albeit, after the inception of the act in 1967.
If we scrap that now and start all over again with national air
quality standards, with what I deem to be the built-in delays that are
in sections 107 and 108 of the administration bill, I think it will be
another 18 months to 2 years before w^e are at the point of
implementation.
I agree, in part, with that excerpt from your statement, but your
basic recommendation that we go to national air quality standards
will, I believe, delay us, perhaps as much as 2 years.
What do you thmk ?
Mr. Tucker. If there are delays built into S. 3466, and I quite
honestly have not had time to study the language in detail, then I
respectfully suggest that you wipe them out. We have air quality
criteria documents available today. In my statement I said two, and
yesterday I heard there were five, and I hear there will be nine by the
end of the year.
I see no reason why these could not be immediately adopted as
national air quality standards.
If we get confused about the terms national air quality standards
and national air quality criteria as the testimony indicated yester-
day, perhaps we should find a new word. But there is no objection on
my part as an industry representative to see those criteria adopted as
national standards immediately, and this would provide that all of
the regions could get on with the job of adopting implementation
plans and emission standards and not have to go through this time-
consuming effort of hearing each and every one of these national air
quality standards.
I don't think there are delays if the legislation is properly drafted.
I submit that it may not be now.
Senator Eagleton. As I read the administration bill, it repeals the
provision whereby HEW promulgates the standards that you are
talking about.
Mr. Tucker. I believe it repeals the promulgation of criteria.
Senator Eagleton. And the implementation.
Mr. Tucker. It is simply, I think, a play on words. Senator. They
would now draft, instead of criteria documents, standards documexits.
They mean almost exactly the same thing.
Senator Eagleton. We went around and around on that yesterday.
There is, from a semantic point of view — and I trust it is also from a
philosophical point of view — a difference between a criteria and a
standard.
Dr. Middleton and others were trying to articulate that benign
difference. At least, they feel there is a significant difference between
the two.
Do you interrelate and couple them all together; that is, criteria
being the same thing as standard.
Mr. Tucker. I do. I have read the criteria documents that have
been issued to date. To me, they have enough safety factors built into
them to protect the health and welfare of the public so that they
could be interpreted as standards.
247
I agree completely with your statement that the difference is benign.
I think there is a very, very slight difference between a criteria docu-
ment and a standards document.
Senator Eagleton-. What level of standard do you want to see
adopted nationally ? Let me be more specific. Take the two levels that
have already been published, and now roughly five. A few more are
coming down the pike later on. Stick with any one you are familiar
with.
As you know, when they publish the criteria, they say at "this"
level it is dangerous to humans, and at "that" level it is not dangerous
to human health, but it is dangerous to plant life.
At still another level it is not dangerous to human health and plant
life but it affects environment.
I can't spell it all out, but as you know, they have varying levels.
What kind of a national level do you want to see established?
Are you satisfied with one that is just good enough for human
health, or do you want one which would extend beyond human health
considerations ?
Mr. Tucker. I certainly would want to do a more complete job than
limit our standards setting to straight human health. I don't think
that HEW has done that. I respect their staff. I respect Dr. Middle-
ton very much as an administrator and as an expert in air pollution
control.
I am willing at this point to respect his judgment on what an accept-
able standard for these particular contaminants would be.
I think they did an excellent job with the first two criteria docu-
ments that I studied. I am certainly not expert enough in the health
effects or the welfare effects of air pollution to be very critical of them.
I am willing to accept HEW's judgment in this matter with the
option, of course, as always, that we have an opportunity to comment
on the papers.
Senator Eagleton. Do you admit to the possibility that conditions
can vary from region to region or area to area, atmospheric con-
ditions, environmental conditions, humidity, and so forth?
The point I am suggesting, of course, is that if you have a national
standard it might t^ good enough and workable in region X, but
because of conditions indigenous to region or area Y it might not be
satisfactory.
Is that at all possible ?
Mr. Tucker. That is very possible and one of the reasons why we
recommend the establishment of State or regional emission standards.
As far as air quality standards are concerned, drafted to protect
the health and welfare of the public, it really doesn't matter. Senator,
whether you are in Pittsburgh or Chicago or Kansas, or where you
may happen to be.
If a certain contaminant makes your eyes water, it will make them
water in any one of those cities; or if it affects your health in any
way, it will affect it regardless of where you are.
So I think national air quality standards should be approved, and
that State or regional emission standards should be adopted to con-
trol the emissions in a particular area dependent upon environmental
conditions.
Emission standards do need to be different and flexible.
248
Senator Eagl.eton. Somewhere in your prepared statement, Mr.
Tucker, you say, "For example, after much responsible study by Fed-
eral scientists, a basic air quality criterion of 80 micrograms per cubic
meter annual average for suspended particles was reconnnended by the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare."
We are not aware of that criterion. Do you have a copy of it?
Mr. Tucker. I do not have a copy of it with me, but that is in their
suspended particulates criteria document.
Senator Eagleton. We are just not aware of any recommendation
by the Department of HEW along the specific lines you have stated
in that sentence.
Mr. Tucker. We would be happy to supply it for the record, if you
would like.
Senator Eagleton. You have spelled out on page 3 the agonies
that you have had with people who want to clean up the air in Cleve-
land and other cities. You want to get away from that because it is a
nuisance in your Department, I guess.
Do you support public participation in regional emission and im-
plementation plans i
Mr. Tucker. I think public participation at that point, Mr. Chair-
man, will be necessary. The people in these regions are going to have
to decide what type emission standards they want. I heard Miami
mentioned yesterday. Perhaps a city such as Miami would like to have
much better air quality than anybody else to satisfy their tourist trade.
If in the judgment of the people who live in Miami they should
exempt industry from that particular part of the counti-y or exempt
anything else that contributes to air pollution, that is a judgment that
they should make.
1 certainly do not object to them participating in that decision.
Senator Eagleton. Let me carry you one step further. If, as you
say, the public should participate in that facet of this undertaking,
how does that square with your opposition to civil action, class action
suits, and so forth, by the public, to enforce those very standards ?
If the public is to have the right to show up at a hearing and be
heard, be it in Miami or elsewhere, to participate and make suggestions
on the kind of air they want in their community, and then those stand-
ards are set, why shouldn't the public have the right to follow up on
that hearing and bring legal actions if they think the standards are not
being enforced ?
Mr. Tucker. As I said in my statement. Senator, I am not at all
qualified to talk about class action suits. I will supply more informa-
tion on that. The thing that I am basically concerned about, in look-
ing at the legislation, is we would like to see legislation that is simple
and effective and can get on with the job of air quality control as soon
as possible.
If we garble that legislation and confuse that legislation by a lot of
extraneous requirements and provisions, I see nothing but a lot of
frustration on the part of both the public and industry for many years
to come as to how quickly we can implement these bills.
We would like to see this job done and done soon. I am afraid that
a good deal of the language that is being suggested in the legislation
will do nothing but slow it down.
249
Senator Eagleton. In your prepared statement you say :
Penalties can only be enforced on the basis of violation of implementation
plans or emission standards, not air quality standards. Air quality is a measure
of the sum of all sources in a region and usually cannot be identified with any
single pollution source.
I call your attention to the Muskie bill, S. 3546, page 5, subsection
(c) and subsection (c) (4) thereof.
Such standards and plan or revisions thereof, shall be the air
quality standards applicable to such region or portions thereof if the
Secretary determines that,'' and down to sub (4), "such plan includes
emission requirements necessary to implement such standards of air
quality."
So that makes the standards and the emission requirements
enforceable, as I read it, under the Muskie bill.
Can you comment on those two portions of the bill in light of the
statement that you make on page 7 ?
Mr. Tucker. I must admit I am a little confused about this lan-
guage. I tried sf)ecifically last night to read it and clarify my own
position on this.
Under the existing act, for example, the Secretary sets air quality
criteria. He also establishes air quality control regions.
Following 90 days, the States file a letter of intent and within 180
days they establish air quality standards. Then they have an additional
180 days to submit a plan of implementation.
Senator Eagleton. Correct.
Mr. Tucker. For this reason, and also even with this language
which you have just read to me, which I admit ties the thing a little
closer together than it did in the original act, I still think enough
confusion exists that we should be quite specific in where the fines are
going to be applied.
I do not believe that the language in S. 3546 is sufficiently specific to
identify where you do apply the penalty to the act itself.
Senator Eagleton. Perhaps the language should be tightened up.
You are in favor of tightening it up, I take it ?
Mr, Tucker. Yes ; I am.
Senator Eagleton. Do you have objection to the imposition of sub-
stantial and significant fines for violation of standards with respect
to excessive emissions ?
Mr. Tucker. I object to some of the fines that are laid out in the
two pieces of legislation before us today. I think they are a little ex-
cessive. Perhaps not for some of the bigger industries, but certainly
for some of the smaller industries.
I realize the language says "up to" that figure. With that in mind,
I really would not prefer to take a position on the fines.
Senator Eagleton. I think the administration bill says "up to."
Mr. Tucker. That is right.
Senator Eagleton. The Muskie bill doesn't have that degree of
gentility.
Mr. Tucker. I didn't realize that, sir.
It says "by a fine of not more than $25,000," which I assume to mean
the same thing.
Senator Eagleton. The Muskie bill ?
250
Mr. Tucker. Yes. Tliat is on page 13. On page 14 it says "by a fine
of not more than $50,000.''
Senator Eagleton. I stand corrected.
Thank you, Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Tucker. Thank you, sir.
Senator Eagleton. Our next witness is Dr. Benjamin Linsky, pro-
fessor, air poHution control engineering, department of civil engi-
neering. West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va.
STATEMENT OE BENJAMIN LINSKY, P.E., PROEESSOR IN AIR POL-
LUTION CONTROL ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGI-
NEERING, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, MORGANTOWN, W. VA.
Senator Eagleton. May I say to both Mr. Tucker, who has just left
the witness table, and Professor Linsky that it is just impossible for
Senator Kandolph to be present in this hearing room at this time
because he is involved in another very important hearing which he
cannot leave. He apologizes and extends his best wishes to both of you.
He hopes you understand.
Mr. LiNSKY. Senator Eagleton, it is my pleasure to be before you.
I hope that two of my graduates who are working in the State of
Missouri have been serving you well, Mr. Auberle and Mr. Marshall.
I am professor of sanitary engineering (air pollution) at West
Virginia University in the department of civil engineering.
I have been engaged full time in air pollution control engineering
and control program development and administration since 1948.
From 1951 to 1956, I was head of the city of Detroit's official air
and noise pollution control agency.
From 1956 to 1963, I developed and directed the official San Fran-
cisco Bay area's regional air pollution control district, covering six
counties and 70 cities.
When, as an agent of social change, I was used up, I left to teach
and train others who would be younger, and hopefully better, because
they would receive deliberate distilled experience and selected course
content regarding air pollution control engineering and program
administration.
I was the 50th President of the National Air Pollution Control
Administration in 1956, and a member of the U.S. Public Health
Service Surgeon General's first National Advisory Committee on
Community Air Pollution Control from 1957 to 1960. I now serve on
the National Air Pollution Manpower Development Advisory Com-
mittee of the National Air Pollution Control Administration.
"While I was in California, from 1956 to 1963, I served on almost
all of the advisory committees to the State legislature and the State
department of public health in drafting their motor vehicle pollution
control laws and standards (limitations) for atmospheric pollutants
and emissions.
I started the air pollution committee of the National Association
of Counties and hold memberships in a number of other national and
regional, technical and other, voluntary organizations concerned with
bettering and protecting the physical enviromnent, and especially its
atmospheric environment.
251
I am also a member of Editorial Advisory Board of the Interna-
tional Journal on Atmospheric Environment.
The American Public Health Association has me serving as chair-
man of one of its committees on air pollution, and as a member of
another of its committees on the same subject.
I serve on the air pollution measurements committee and the plan-
ning and zoning committee of the Air Pollution Control Association,
National Society of Professional Engineers and vice presidency of its
West Virginia Morgantown chapter ; American Public Works Associa-
tion and presidency of the West Virginia chapter; American Institute
of Planners (affiliate membership) ; American Meteorology Society;
American Society of Government Industrial Hygienists; American
Society for Engineering Education; American Society for Public
Administration; American Academy of Environmental Engineering;
American Academy of Industrial Hygiene ; Public Affairs Conference
of West Virginia; American Academy for the Advancement of Sci-
ence; Izaak Walton League of America; American Society of Plan-
ning Officials ; the Civil Engineering honorary Chi Epsilon ; the Engi-
neering Society of Detroit; Engineers Club of San Francisco; San
Francisco Press Club ; and others.
I received my bachelor of science and master of science degrees in
mechanical engineering from Wayne State University in Detroit and
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and have held appointments
as special lecturer and teacher at the University of California, Stan-
ford University, and Wayne State University.
I am chairman of the technical committee that has been advising
the State of West Virginia and the Federal Government on its study,
just being printed, of air pollution in the Kanawha Valley, Charleston.
This study has resulted in the enactment and preparation for future
enactment of regional and statewide air pollution control regulations
by the State of West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission,
I also serve as an editorial consultant to the Maxwell Reprint Co.,
a division of Maxwell Scientific International, Inc.
Senator Eagleton. It will show in the record that you are a na-
tionally recognized, sanitized version of Art Carney.
Mr. LiNSKY. Thank you.
Tlie information I have prepared for you is consistent with my
intent to help you restore clean air to our cities, towns, and rural
countryside, while fully retaining and expanding our standards of
living.
The added costs to the national economy's production, the added
costs to the regulator}^ Government tax budgets, and the added costs
to each citizen-consumer are so small that the air pollution control
officials and the "aware" editors who are caught up in the bitter battles
with resisting polluting industries have been reluctant to tell the gen-
eral public or their elected representatives how cheap it really is to
have clean air, lest they endanger their own jobs or limit their oppor-
tunities for promotion.
One suggested solution for the air pollution control official's dilemma
might be to provide a "carry along" pension system similar to that
available to city managers, or to college faculty members who are en-
couraged, when younger, to move in order to broaden their knowledge,
43-166 O— 70— pt. 1 17
252
and when older, to move in order to spread their wisdom in other
colleges and universities.
The dilemma of the man in the middle of a public controversy who
can only find employment in large organizations is obvious when he
begins to plan for his future and that of his family.
As to the editors who have been hanging back — I trust that the open
competition of the freedom of the press will meet this. The example
of consistent failures and refusals to carry the "It only costs a few
cents" story will be discussed more fully, using the two Federal reports
on "Costs of Clean Air," my own 1965 report to this committee regard-
ing cleanly produced electricity, and my 1965 report to this committee
regarding the very large profit value of even 1 year's deferment in air
j^ollution control installation.
Each year's deferment is worth about $250,000 to $300,000 for stall-
ing the installation of $1 million of air pollution control equipment.
Even so, the added retail cost is usually less than 1 percent to the
consumer.
This chart, which I present here, was prepared for you and illus-
trates electricity production in St. Louis, Mo., with the cost as of a few
years ago.
$10. 00
$9.00
$8.00
$7.00
.$6.00
to
Qi
3
_j
o
5.00
' $ 4. 00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
SO. 00
Average Household Customer's Montnly Price of Electricity 1
940
R -- $9. 40 - Total Household Customer Cost
(Including $0. 56 assumed profit)
S I $6. 04 ; Distribution Cost
T = $2. 77 -- Total Production Cost at Power Plant
U -. $1. 39 ; Capitol Investment Cost of Production
Equipment
V i$0.79 --Fuel Cost
W = $0. 22 - Operation Cost
X - $0. 30 = Maintenance Cost
Y -$0.06 -Air Pollution Control Cost (Including
Copltol, Maintenance, and Operation)
Linsky after Tarquin'
ot 375 Kw-Hr. Per Month
Statement by Linslsy, B.,W. V. U.. before
the Subcommittee on Air and Woter
Pollution of the Senate Committee on
Public Worl(S, Porkersburg, W. Va.
Dec. 16, 1965.
A method for Determining the Riesiden-
tial Customer's Cost of Air Pollution
Control in the Power Industry, Problem,
Anthony Tarquin, W.V. U., 1965.
Tliis is the air pollution control cost of the best fly ash control equip-
ment that you could buy at that time in relation to the retail price of
electricity in St. Louis of an average household.
It is about 6 cents a month.
253
Senator Eagleton. I hate to interrupt, but could you explain this
chart to me a little further ? I am not very good with figures.
Mr. LiNSKY. I will be pleased to. The $9.40 is the retail delivered
price of electricity for a customer that uses about 375 kilowatt hours
a month.
The $6.04 is the cost of owning and operating the distribution system,
admmistering and metering, meter reading, and so forth.
The $2.77 is the cost of the electricity at the gates of the power plant,
the so-called bus bar cost. That includes the value of the capital and
everything else.
The 79 cents represents the cost of the fuel that went in to make up
that $9.40 worth of electricity.
The 6 cents represented the cost of good fly ash control equipment
then available.
Senator Eagleton. On the 6-cent figure, would that be as you view
it, triple X special pollution control equipment doing a really bang-up
job?
Mr. LiNSKY. That was only for fly ash.
In the newest report, the second HEW report of January 1970 on
costs of clean air, which has just been delivered to you, I believe you
will find the figure for electricity running about 40 or 50 cents now
for well controlled sulfur dioxide and everything else we know how
to do.
Senator Eagleton. Let us take the high figure of 50 cents. If you
add 50 cents to $9.40 could you really do a thorough job in the public
interest ?
Mr. LiNSKY. Yes, the best job anyone could possibly think of doing
at this time, or even in the next 5 years.
Senator Eagleton. That is strictly air and has nothing to do with
the picture for water pollution ?
Mr. LiNSKY. With regard to a powerplant's thermal pollution, that
is a subject in which I am not expert, but into which I have looked
sharply.
The best information I can find is that it would add about 50 cents to
a family's monthly electricity bill, to get rid of thermal pollution en-
tirely by going to dry, mechanical cooling towers.
Senator Eagleton. That would be another 50 cents, if your figures
are borne out, to do both air and water, perhaps making it $10.40.
Mr. LiNSKY. Yes. This is for one of the commonly located, in-
herently polluting operations.
It has, in recent years, been difficult for you to meet organized pres-
sures from large polluters who wish to walk you away from the ob-
vious public desires for unpolluted air.
They try to focus you only upon toxic and hazardous to human
health pollutants and effects.
As a professional engineer who is licensed to practice the profession
of engineering because of responsibilities for health, welfare, and
safety, it is proper to call for a greater safety factor whenever there
is doubt or differences between specialists, as is true in the case of
medical researchers into air pollution illness and toxicity.
In the criteria documents are the best statements, without a safety
factor built in, of what professionals have found, have reported, and
254
which have been considered worthwhile enough by the review com-
mittees to be inchided.
They do not contain safety factors beyond that.
Senator Eagleton. Are you recommending that with whatever
standard is set, by whatever method is used, that there will be an x
percent safety factor because distinguished, sophisticated experts are
not in precise agreement on the figures ?
Mr. LiNSKY. Yes. In engineermg we call the safety factor and the
ignorance factor the same thing between ourselves when nobody is
listening.
In addition to the illness and toxicity, people resent the other mali-
fits as much as, or more than, they fear impairment of their health.
There are at least seven other types of man-induced undesirable air
pollution effects :
1. Annoyance to senses, including malodor and eye irritation.
2. Soiling of surfaces, li^ht or dark.
3. Interference with visibility, in the absence of clean, natural fog.
These hazes, when damp, are called sooner fogs, reminiscent of the
land rush cheaters. They probably should be called sooner or later
because they last longer, too, than if the air pollution were not there.
4. Sky darkening.
5. Injury to vegetation including reduced yields per acre.
6. Other property damage, including rubber cracking, corrosion,
paint damage, and rotting fabric.
7. Interference with production, services, or social activity such as
flying, outdoor sports by children and adults, precision production,
cormnercial baking of cakes and cookies —
You can imagine how they would taste and smell if made near
an uncontrolled foundry — and close eye work such as in the needle
trades. SuCh polluting industries also chase out and keeps out modern
clean industries. Varian, for example, moved about 20 miles to an-
other city, from San Carlos to Palo Alto, Calif.
Any one of the eight types of undesirable effects of air pollution
cause uninvited stresses in people who then seek, and are willing to
pay for, displeasure avoidance, to the extent they think they can ob-
tain it without economic ruin.
In the past, they have been short changed of information as to how
inexpensive it is to control air pollutants — how few pennies it takes
when they pay for something made in a non-air-polluting way and
for non-air-polluting use.
TWO TYPES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND BUDGETS
You, as legislators, and your constituents would probably also be
helped if more people understood more clearly the distinction between
(1) regulatory Government functions, and (2) owning and operating
governmental functions.
These two generally different types of governmental function result,
as you know, in two different types of budgets, taxes, and service fees
in Federal, State, and local governments.
Regulatory Government functions include police, fire prevention,
building code enforcement, and air pollution control agency work.
255
These are different and far smaller than the owning and operating Grov-
ernment functions which includes public schooling, construction and
operation of roads, bridges, and airports, and TVA steam powerplants,
and so forth.
Tlie operating functions resist and cause conflicts with air pollution
regulatoiy agencies just as the regulatory agencies meet resistance and
conflicts from privately owned industry polluters.
The same conflicts exist between the air pollution control agencies
under the ministries of production in Communist countries, and health,
as we learn from their air pollution specialists when they visit here.
The leverage of control agency budgets, at $1 per capita per year,
can be several hundred dollars of control capital investment and
an annualized added price of $50 per year is so far for all the things
consumers buyers.
Information should be clearly provided for your use and for the
public at large so they can see more easily that the regulatory work
they want to see done costs only a very small addition to their tax pay-
ments, while the cleaning up of Government operations, just like the
cleaning up of non-Grovernment air polluting sources also usually
adds only a A-ery small percentage to the costs of their construction
and operation.
Table 3-9, included here, gives some cost ratios with added air pol-
ultion cost i^er dollar of shipment shown, as a percentage of price at
the plant.
(Table follows)
TABLE 3-9.— EXPECTED ANNUAL CONTROL COSTS RELATIVE TO CAPACITY AND SHIPMENTS OF INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS SOURCES'
[1967 base; 100 metropolitan areas)
Source totals
Cost ratios
Value of
Type of source
Capacity
shipments
(millions
(billions
of units)
of dollars)
4.1
0.4
116.0
10.5
10.0
1.7
3.4
.6
24.4
.2
3.5
.4
2, 530.
13.5
250.0
.6
279.0
.6
9.6
.1
61.4
.3
5, 140.
9.8
43.9
3.7
1,330.0
C)
52.0
.1
170.0
2.5
2.4
1.4
Annual
control
cost
(millions
of dollars)
Cost per
unit of
annual
capacity
(dollars
per unit)
Cost per
dollar of
shipment
(percent)
Kraft (sulfate) pulp plants tons..
Iron and steel plants tons raw steel..
Gray Iron foundries tons castings 2..
Primary nonferrous metallurgical plants tons 3..
Sulfu ric acid pla nts do
Phosphate fertilizer plants tons P2O5. .
Petroleum refineries barrels..
Asphalt batching plants tons paving mixture *..
Cement plants barrels. .
Lime plants.. - tons..
Coal cleaning plants do
Petroleum products storage plants gallons 5..
Grain mills tons..
Grain elevators bushels ' . .
Varnish plants gallons..
Rubber plants ..tires and tubes..
Secondary nonferrous metallurgical plants tons..
2.5
204.0
49.1
23.5
2.2
5.5
1.4
18.6
5.7
.5
.5
7.9
7.5
.8
2.5
11.9
0.61
1.76
4.91
6.91
.09
1.57
.74
.02
.05
.01
.18
.01
.02
.01
1.96
0.63
1.94
2.89
3.92
1.10
1.39
.01
3.10
.95
.50
.17
.21
.8
.10
.85
'Costs tor controlling particulate, sulfur oxide, hydrocarbon, and cabron monoxide emissions from facilities operating
in calendar year 1967. The areas are defined in app. I.
2 Capacity is calculated assuming 1,000 operating hours per year.
5 Tons applies to copper, lead, zinc, and aluminum smelters; for copper and lead, capacity is input material.
* Capacity is calculated assuming 1,000 operating hours per year.
5 Capacity is in million gallons of gasoline storage space.
* Capacity is in million bushels of storage space.
■ Not applicable.
Source: National Air Pollution Control Administration; taken in full by Linsky from "The Cost of Clean Air " 2d Report of
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Congress of the United States in compliance with Public Law 90-148,
January 1970.
256
This percentajje cost is not for a finished product, but for a com-
paratively basic material, except for rubber tires and tubes. The high-
est ratio Was for sulfuric acid plants at 8.92 percent. After the other
labor and clean distribution work costs are added, the result is less than
1 percent added to consumer costs, on the average.
Senator Eagleton. The 3.92 applies to primary nonferrous and
metallurgical plants.
Mr. LiNSKY. I don't know how much brass and aluminum we buy
or what credit has been allowed in here for regained material.
In the nonferrous smelter industry, particularly in the brass, zinc,
lead, and so forth, the recovered sulfur is a major part of the profit
side of the industry.
I have a little report here that I thought might be amusing to you,
perhaps a little awkward as well.
It is a 1913 report on air pollution in California by members of the
Comjnon wealth Club, which clearly depicts and describes the recovery
of sulfur from smelters as being profitable even then in some instances.
Senator Eagleton. Looking at table 3-9, in the last column, the cost
ratios are listed as cost per dollar of shipment, and you have discussed
or mentioned the primary nonferrous plants, 3.92 per shipment.
What is a shipment? How big or how little?
Mr. LiNSKY. That is per dollar of shipment. This is factory billing
of the material.
In this case, you may have raw pulp, raw craft pulp, raw steel, cast-
ings that have not been machined or anything else done to them, tons
of brass, aluminum, and so forth, tons of sulfuric acid, tons of phos-
phate fertilizer, where a small part of the cost goes into agriculture.
Senator Eagleton. To put it in my layman's language, what that
column indicates is that for a dollar of a shipment of these items listed
in the left-hand column, it would add, as in the instance of primary
nonferrous metallurgical plants almost 4 cents per dollar?
Mr. LiNSKY. That is correct.
Senator Eagleton. And for cement plants, my particular enemy
Mr. LiNSKY (continuing). It would add almost 1 cent.
Senator Eagleton. One percent increase.
Mr. LiNSKY. This kind of figure has not been widely available. It
has been buried.
Senator Eagleton. In addition to your other academic pedigrees,
are you an economist of sorts?
Mr. Linsky. Not by degree but by compulsion. I have had to learn
the economics of engineering economics and production in the same
way I have had to learn other kinds of specialties, just enough to
laiow when to reach for the specialist.
Senator Eagleton. Do you feel, for instance, that the addition of
less than a penny on cement plant shipments would be found inflation-
ary by some people?
Mr. Linsky. I doubt it. The ])rices of cement seem to go up far more
than that without anyone paying any attention to it.
Senator Eagleton. I agree with you, but a lot of people find infla-
tion in ditferent tilings when tliey want to look for it. None of us want
to be guilty of inflation. I am glad to hear you say youdon't think this
is too inflationary.
257
Mr. LiNSKY. Not only do you not have inflation, but also if that
adds a j^enny to the cost of ordinary manufactured cement it might
even operate to help in resources recovei*y.
A little more fly ash might be used because that is in competition
with cement for some kinds of construction. You might have an offset
in reducing the cost of fly ash disj^osal.
Senator Eagleton. On this table, does it take into account recycling,
reuse, secondary use, and so forth?
Mr. LiNSKr. The reuse factor is minor in these figures, so far as I
could tell.
One of the questions I am most frequently asked is, "What should
we do to clean it up once and for all?"
I worked out an answer for the League of Women Voters group in
northern California in 1958 or 1959. It seems to be easier to understand
and helpful to many. That is in this chart which I refer to now.
AIR POLLUTION
2X = t9/|2YRS.
REG,
CONTROLS
EOPLE
2X=I5YRS.
REG 2
CONTROLS
7\IR POLLUTIOI^
^@ m
^BLE
OTHER
REGULATIONS '
1950
1960
1970
1980
Air Pollucion Potential Growth and Cut Back Concept Chart
Developed by Linsky in lata 1950s while San Francisco Bav
Area Air Pollution Control District chief of agencv.
The idea, shown in chart form, is that our air pollution potential
keeps increasing along with our general productivity per person and
improved material standard of living. This leads to the understanding
that the total amounts of pollutants in any area will also grow unless
tighter and tighter regulatory limits are set and enforced on all those
in the area. Added to this identified need for periodic added tightening
is the fact the air coming into an area might contain more and more
pollutants from elsewhere, below the legal threshold but, when added
to the locally produced stuff adds up to trouble. This tightening wall
therefore need to be done at locations 50 or 100 miles away, farther
too, l^ecause even very small percentages of the "potential" that are
allowed to "leak" or "penetrate" add up to the locally emitted "small
percentage."
258
In addition to all of this, it is obvious that people's goals are shifting
so that after they achieve frequent 6-mile visibilities in Detroit, they
wish to have frequent 12-mile visibilities, comparable to that on a
gusty, windy day, infrequently.
I think the same kind of thmg is happening elsewhere around the
country.
By the way, it is not always clear to nonspecialists that in air
pollutants and in noise control we are often dealing with trace quanti-
ties of "lost" pollutants and energy that cause significant trouble
nearby and farther away.
For example, the small amount of energy that goes to make up a
very troublesome noise is very liard to harness, in fact, impossible to
harness and use. It only results in a little bit of heat, unusable.
But as our technology improves and as our easier, richer resources
are used up or reservecl for later use, more and more of these trace
quantities can be transformed and recovered — but I never expect to see
noise or glare energies regained.
One of the advantages of good air pollution control engineering is
that it often concentrates and assembles larger quantities of wastes
for possible production use.
Until quite recently, in most parts of the United States in large
cities, small cities, and rural areas — and I have a report of the study
of West Virginia, showing troubles county by county, even in the most
niral county — the people who protested, demonstrated, and crowded
the hearing halls were well organized industrial polluters who used
irrational, emotional, and even hysterical language such as "ruinous
costs," "it will drive industry away," "enormous costs that the public
will pay in the end," "regulation for regulation's sake," "arbitrary,"
and so forth.
I have brought along a 12-year-old photograph showing an air
pollution control officer being hung in effigy by the organized secondary
materials and private refuse disposal industry.
They were trying to tell a city-county board of supervisors they
should not adopt a local ordinance against open burning of rubbish
and scrap metal and thus help enforce a regional law\
This was at the San Francisco City Hall, and my effigy was sus-
pended from the yardarm of an auto wrecking "company truck, as
depicted in the San Francisco Chronicle. This was in 19.58.
Senator Eagleton. Is that when you moved to West Virginia?
Mr. LiNSKY. No. As a matter of fact, I was able to get enoua:h work
done so that it wasn't until 1963 that I used up all my "brownie" points.
But until recently, only in a few other places had the shoe been on
the other foot, with the public insisting on clean air for themselves
and their children. These publicly protesting places a few years back
were often not even the dirtiest.
Los Angeles, Calif., rather than Gary, Ind.; Seadade, Fla., rather
than Eiver Rouge, Mich., or Charleston, W. Va., were scenes of citizen
protest.
Occasionally the housewives would picket a specific nearby power-
plant or a nearby coal-drying plant, or demonstrate at a mayor's office,
as in Chicago, almost 10 years ago, on in two coal mining towns.
An advertisement for Virginia Electric Power Co., appearing in the
Washington Post, Wednesday, August 10, 1969, states :
259
The cost of living has risen 136% since 1941. The average annual unit cost
of electricity has gone down 46%. If your bill is higher, it's because you're using
more electricity. Six times as much as in 1941.
The legislation sponsored by your committee, the increased travel
and permanent mobility of people, and the easier movement of infor-
mation have let more people now know that they are entitled to
unpolluted air, even though legal mechanisms are quite cubersome and
complex at times.
The need for faster acting legal mechanisms, which might be found
buried in some older laws — and I see they just dug up one that could
operate very rapidly in Florida, an 1890 law or thereabouts — and the
need for more trained people to work in public agencies and private
service point to the need for added Federal, State, regional, and local
budgeted positions, and added budget appropriations for specialized
education and training, as well as general public and schoolchildren's
education.
The added $1 or $2 or even $4 per ton for cleanly made steel and
iron castings do not add much to the car payments for a new car, but
people don't yet realize this, and so the steel towns and foundry
neighborhoods are not cleaned up.
Similarly, the added 1 cent per gallon for nonleaded high-octane
gasoline is almost lost in the 8 or 10 cents a mile overall cost for operat-
ing an automobile, even assuming only 12 miles per gallon of gasoline.
I recently ran into a 1920 paper by a civil engineer named Tribus.
It was entitled "Travel Habits of Odors," and contained a statement
attributed to "the first public utterance of the first State board of
health in the United States, that of Massachusetts, in 1869 :
We believe that all citizens have an inherent (emphasis mine) "right to the
enjoyment of pure and uncontaminated air and water and soil ; that this right
i^hould be regarded as belonging to the whole community ; and that no one should
be allowed to trespass upon it by his carelessness or his avarice or even by his
ignorance.
When people are asked if they would pay a few cents a month for
a good air pollution control regulatory effort, and when they are asked
if they would pay an added 1 percent or less for the things they buy,
almost all of it resulting in increased employment for someone, the
answers I have been receiving are astonishment at the low price and
assurance that it is a bargain they would go for.
Various attempts to predict the future needs for trained air pol-
luion control manpower produce different answers.
Public agency employment, at Federal, State, regional, and local
level, after job descriptions, titles, and salary restructuring are ar-
ranged for, can be competitive with industrial employment of spe-
cialists only if the manpower supply is reasonably adequate.
Otherwise, the industrial higher salary incentives will be so high
as to overcome even the public-minded motivation that usually permits
public salaries for professional practitioners to be a little lower.
Some of tlie estimates of future manpower needs do not seem to take
into account tlie full impact of the future requirement that industrial
air pollution control equipment be kept up-to-date and be brought
up-to-date to match ordinary changes in production processes.
It will be requiring much more stack sampling and much more
frequent control equipment adjustments and revisions in the future
260
to meet more of the control regulations in more parts of the country
tlian now takes place.
In addition, as yon probably know, a large amount of control equip-
ment has been bought in the past without any requirement that its
effectiveness be physically tested prior to the customer paying for it,
or prior to a smaller, weaker control agency approving it for initial
and ongoing use.
Tlie growing role of volunteer watchdog agencies can also be ex-
pected to lead them to employ additional trained specialists, full tinie
or as consultants, for their day-to-day or week-to-week supportive air
l^ollution control activities.
Thus, the need for specialists at technician, professional, and re-
search expert, levels has been underestimated by all manpower studies
to date, I believe.
T have become fed up with the publicly scary figures that result
when tlie added air pollution control capital costs and annualized
costs of something I buy is given an emotional aura by multiplying
it by millions of buyers and then multipling that hobgoblin figure
again by several years of purchases and usage.
' Tims', table 3.3 in the 1969 "Cost of Clean Air" report shows the
fvrowth of a $1.80 to $5.80 annualized cost per motor vehicle into a
$304 million cumulative national annualized cost by 1974, and an even
larger $2,604 billion cumulative national capital cost by 1974.
(The table referred to follows :)
TABLE 33— ESTIMATED COST OF MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS, 1968-74
(National cost in millionsl
Estimated national cost
Assumed cost
per car
Capital
Annual
cost
Annualized
Capital cost
Annualized
Cumulative
Annual Cumi
iative
1968 $18 $1.80 $180 .__ ._. $18
1969 18 1.80 180 $360 18 $36
1970. 36 3.60 360 720 36 72
1971 48 5.80 480 1,200 58 130
1972 48 5.80 480 1,680 58 188
1973 48 5.80 480 2,160 58 246
1974 48 5.80 480 2,640 58 304
How often have you heard either the low figure of $5.80 annualized
cost per car year used from public platforms or seen it in print ? Why
not?
If we followed the same patterns in looking at the cumulative cost
for Colonel Sanders' Kentucky Fried Chicken by 1974, for those who
like to add the cost to our food budgets, I believe that figure would be
startlingly large, too. About one-half billion dollars a year in Colonel
Sanders Kentucky Fried Chicken sales is not very relevant to the
question of whether or not you or I, as individual people want some.
We have already shown they do.
Please let me repeat a small paragraph from one of my previous
public statements, reprinted in one State's conservation magazine, the
Delaware Conservationist, summer 1966, volume X, No. 3 :
However, the best long-range or short-range self-interest of a management may
lie in deferring installations. Every year of delay in a $1,000,000 nonprofitable
261
installation may save $250,000 a year. A small part of this will buy a lot of time
in studies, lobbying, etc.
Mr. LiNSKY. I had a few other comments which I had not prepared
ahead and worked on last night. May I proceed ?
Senator Eagletoist. Yes.
Mr. LiNSKY. As a tax relief or financial incentive, I know many
who will say, "We will pay $5 a family per month for all open and
hidden product and servdce charges, plus all open and hidden taxes,"
to reduce soiling, corrosion, including, perhaps, the Silver Bridge
disaster, and so forth.
This means that new coal mines for the United States as well as
for Japan will be dug fast. It will see new sulfur chemical plants
grafted onto electricity plants.
We will even see wet evaporator that cause sooner fog from cooling
towers replaced by dry natural draft or mechanical draft towers, such
as are growing elsewhere in the world to avoid thermal pollution and
air pollution.
Some people, such as my impatient wife, say :
Why doesn't the Federal Government pay everyone to put a corrective change
in 100 percent and then inspect and ix)liee them to make sure they maintain it?
Also, every time he changes production there can be a government insi>ector
or engineer around who can see to it that the air pollution controls, too, that
he is fully controlled, and if the States sit on their plans and hands, to put it
lightly, the Federal i)eople can move in fast as they do when it is an AEC nuclear
matter.
If the Federal Government is as serious as my wife believes the
American people are, when they learn it is only a high maximum of
$5 a month for all sorts of controls and modifications on everything —
I will leave the conclusion o'f that sentence open.
With a similar sense of urgency, the last air pollution control public
wave began before 1900 and was only stopped by World War I, as
the scholars now appreciate.
This one has the further advantage that some added employments
could be used, equal to one percent or so of the employed population, to
do the work of building and maintaining control equipment.
In addition, when things boom the air pollution control engineer-
ing work can be a price increase reason for not dropping below a 40-
hour week, while maintaining our pleasurable goods standard of living
along with a vastly improved pleasurable outdoor air level of enjoyable
living.
All it takes is guts and money plus a plan and a very few years.
Senator Eagleton. Thank you. Professor, for both your prepared
statement and the addendum thereto.
Have you had occasion to examine in any detail the three bills that
are immediaitely before us ?
Mr. LiNSKY.' I have looked at them. I have not explored them
intently because I didn't know what questions were in the minds of
the committee.
Senator Eagleton. Rather than go into the bills in fine detail, let
me ask you a more broadly based policy question.
In the administration bill, they recommend going, at this time, to
national air quality standards. In "the Muskie bill, it is an improvement
upon or an extension of the basic fabric of the 1967 act.
262
Maybe I am oversimplifying it. Which route do you prefer or do-
you have a preference ?
Mr. LiNSKY. The national air quality standards as minimal stand-
ards would be usable and would be useful, but not as a substitute for
the region, State and local standards.
It might be an additional fabric, again, for those States and regions
that sit on their plans and hands.
Senator Eagleton. Under Secretary Veneman said yesterday he
viewed them as minimum standards, that the States and regions would
be free to improve them.
Do you run this risk : If you set a national standard that is theo-
retically tolerable, don't you run the risk that that standard, perforce,
becomes the nationwide standard ?
That is, a local region says, "Well, if that is good enough for the
whole country, if it is good enough for New York and Los Angeles,
why should we here in St. Louis and Kansas City worry about it?"
Mr. LiNSKY. For standards, can I substitute the word "limitations" ?
Then I don't get confused with good or better or tighter or looser.
I think it has been well demonstrated that area-wide legal limits
are not always good enough for locals by the local's own viewpoints.
The previous witness was complaining that these recommenda-
tions — and they are rather broad, kind of fuzzy recommendations that
you couldn't label as recommendations — were pointed at without a
safety factor, that the localities have. been going tighter for their own
good reasons.
Senator Eagleton. I agree with you and Mr. Tucker who testified
before.
For instance, he stated that basic air quality criterion of 80 micro-
grams per cubic meter annual average — well, he said was recommended
by HEW. We don't know that.
Assuming it has been, it is his position that it is a good nationwide
standard and that Cleveland, Ohio, and Chicago and Charleston are
f utzing around with it.
Mr. LiNSKY. This is almost irreligious. If I want to live in a com-
munity that is cleaner. I don't know why I couldn't have a tighter liv-
ing standard and tighter limits on my neighborhood just as I do in
zoning, and neither do you.
If you want to live in a cleaner area than is accepted as a result of
bargaining at the national level, and, frankly, that is what it is
Senator Eagleton. It is even more than that. Is it not only what
people think they ought to have locally, which I think is very im-
portant, but also isn't it a scientific fact that regions do vary in terms of
atmosphere, humidity, climate control, so that conditions are not iden-
tical in all 50 States ?
^ Mr. LiNSKY, The major differences with regard to the outdoor air
dirtiness limitations, if you are calling these air quality standards, are
dust and fog. Any measurements of air pollutants that are done well
will take into account such factors as sunshine that convert material
A to material B while it is in the air.
So the only backgrounds that you have that may be troublesome and
different will be dust and natural fog. Those two differences are
important.
263
The citation of areas that are sparsely settled that have high back-
grounds might very well be from a desert area.
Senator Eagleton. On page 4 of your prepared statement, you list
seven other types of undesirable air pollution effects.
How would national standards apply to those seven others? Are
those seven others variable from one district or one region to another,
or would you say they are constant factors in all districts or regions
and, therefore, susceptible to a national standard ?
Mr. LiNSKY. The background conditions that are different are cer-
tainly No. 3, which is the interference with visibility because of the
presence of fog, damp air, and soiling, where you may have the desert
kinds of dust.
Senator Eagletox. Do I take it, then, the others would be constant
factors ? I don't know whether that is a term of art.
Mr. LiNSKY. I think reasonably, yes. You have a little more rubber
cracking out on the west coast because of more extended sunshine.
Senator Eagleton. I now have three questions which I would like to
propound to you from Senator Randolph. He sent them over to us
and asked that we direct these three questions to you.
In your prepared statement you refer to cumbersome and complex
enforcement provisions in existing air pollution laws.
Could you specify particular legal roadblocks in these statutes and
suggest how they might be overcome ?
Mr. LiNSKY. I would sit down and work them out for any particular
State and locality since each State's laws, as you know, are so different.
Even within the States the home rule cities, home rule counties, have
specific provisions.
So other than a totally uniform federal system, which is apparently
not contemplated, it would have to work out those specific roadblocks
case by case.
Senator Eagleton. You are correct. There is an enormous variance
in State laws, municipal ordinances, and so forth. So passing that, just
viewing it in terms of Federal legislation and Federal regulations,
what comment would you make ?
Mr. LiNSKY. I think national emission standards would have value.
National emission limits have real value, again as floors beyond which
local operations could go tighter when and if they wish unless it be-
comes the policy of the Congress and of the Federal Government that a
British system be used, such as the British Alkali Act, as "the best
practicable means" to be utilized, coupled with exclusion as an area
approaches its air quality legal limits.
Such exclusion is being practiced practically here and there around
the country, generally not advertised. The only place that I know of
that was loudly advertised was in Los Angeles County where they said
"no new fossil -fuel-fired powerplants in our county."
Senator Eagleton. Describe for me how you would set up a national
emission standard, say for the st€el industry. You call it a floor or a
limit.
Mr. LiNSKY. The best, well-used equipment would be prescribed.
Numbers would be set up that would match the best well-used control
equipment for the process.
264
Beyond that, since you have a land space factor and a general limit
location factor — well, let me put it this way : The best, cleanest steel
mill in the country does not belong next to the State capitol building
or a school because of spills, upsets, and some not yet controlled oper-
ations in which adequate engineering has not been done, such as the
coke oven charging.
So you would need a combination of the emission limits and a hard
caution prior to location of location factors that are inherent, sensi-
tivities to neighboring land uses.
Senator Eagleton. Would you support the basic concept, then,
that by Federal legislation we should require all new plants, steel,
automotive, lead plants, and so forth, at the time of construction to
have as part of their process the then best available pollution control
equipment ?
Mr. LiNSKY. Yes, with an additional proviso, that its location be
appropriately governed so that it isn't in an area that is either crowded
with other pollutants already being produced, with some margin for
growth by that plant itself, and with a sensitivity of nearby neighbors.
Senator Eagleton. How would you handle this plant site certifica-
tion business? Should this be done by the Federal Government, the
State Government, county, or municipality ?
Who would certify the propriety of a plant being located on a cer-
tain plot of land ?
Mr. LiNSKY. I wish I had a good answer for that one, but the politi-
cal scene is changing, and if the public interest continues to develop
as it has been, then I think it might be safely left to a local or a State
operation.
If it doesn't, then it is going to require, shall we say, a Federal over-
view and review. There is no reason why the location should not require
a Federal overview to make certain that an error has not been made or
that undue pressure has not been placed by those who w^ant to grow
their department stores and grow their subdivision with new
eniployees.
Senator Eagleton. Senator Randolph's second question : In your
statement you said you have participated in the preparation of air
pollution control regulations for the State of West Virginia.
Could you provide these for the record ?
Mr. LiNSKY. Yes. The regulations to which contributed, although
not all of my suggestions were accepted, are numbers I tlirough VI,
as well as the proposed regiilation VII. The State law was rewritten
in part, as a result of my advice to the State's agency staff and members
of the State legislature at their request.
(The documents furnished follow :)
Air Pollution Control Law
OF
West Virginia
Issued by
WEST VIRGINIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION
Reprinted from Michie's West Virginia Code and
1967 Cumulative Supplement
THE MICHIE COMPANY
Charlottesville, Va.
1967
(265)
266
Air Pollution Control Law of West Virginia
CHAPTER 16.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
ARTICLE 20.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL.
Sec.
16-20-1
Declaration of policy and pur-
pose.
16-20-2. Definitions.
16-20-3. Causing statutory pollution
unlawful; article not to pro-
vide persons with additional
legal remedies.
16-20-4. Air pollution control commission
— Composition; appointment
and terms of members; vacan-
cies; compensation and ex-
penses of members; organiza-
tion and personnel; appoint-
ment of director; records;
meetings.
16-20-5. Same — Powers and duties;
legal services; rules and regu-
lations; public hearings.
16-20-6. Issuance of cease and desist or-
Sec.
ders by director; service; ap-
peals to commission; hearings,
subpoenas, etc.; orders and
findings of commission.
16-20-7. Appeals from orders of com-
mission.
16-20-8. Penalties; recovery and disposi-
tion; duties of prosecuting at-
torneys.
16-20-9. Applications for injunctive re-
lief.
16-20-10. Emergencies.
16-20-11. Powers reserved to State board
of health, local health boards
and political subdivisions;
conflicting statutes repealed.
16-20-12. Severability.
16-20-13. Effective date of rules and reg-
ulations.
§ 16-20-1. Declaration of policy and purpose.
It is hereby declared to be the public policy of this State and the purpose
of this article to achieve and maintain such levels of air quality as M^ill
protect human health and safety, and to the greatest degree practicable,
prevent injury to plant and animal life and property, foster the comfort
and convenience of the people, promote the economic and social develop-
ment of this State and facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions
of this State.
To these ends it is the purpose of this article to provide for a coordinated j
state-wide program of air pollution prevention, abatement and control ; to
facilitate cooperation across jurisdictional lines in dealing with problems
of air pollution not confined within single jurisdictions; and to provide a
framework within which all values may be balanced in the public interest.
(1961, c. 63; 1963, c. 76; 1967, c. 13.)
Effect of amendment of 1967. — The
amendment rewrote this section.
267
§ 16-20-2. Definitions.
The terms used in this article are defined as follows :
The term "person" shall mean any and all persons, natural or artificial,
including any municipal, public or private corporation organized or exist-
ing under the laws of this or any other state or country, and any firm,
partnership or association of whatever nature.
The term "commission" shall mean the air pollution control commission,
and the term "commissioner" shall mean a member of said commission.
The term "air pollutants" shall mean solids, liquids or gases which, if
discharged into the air, will result in a statutory air pollution.
The term "discharge" shall refer to the release, escape or emission of
air pollutants into the air.
The term "statutory air pollution" shall mean and be limited to the
discharge into the air by the act of man of substances (liquid, solid, gas-
eous, organic or inorganic) in a locality, manner and amount as to be
injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or
which would interfere with the enjoyment of life or property.
The term "director" shall mean the director of the West Virginia air
pollution control commission appointed as hereinafter provided. (1961, c.
63;1967, c. 13.)
Efifect of amendment of 1967. — The "statutory air pollution," and added the
amendment made changes in the defini- definition of "director."
tions of "commission," "discharge" and
§ 16-20-3. Causing statutory pollution unlawful; article not to pro*
vide persons with additional legal remedies.
For the purposes of this article and subject to all of the provisions here-
of, it shall be unlawful for any person to cause a statutory air pollution as
herein defined : Provided, however, that nothing contained in this article
shall be construed to provide any person with a legal remedy or basis for
damages or other relief not otherwise available to such person immediately
prior to enactment of this article [June 6, 1961]. (1961, c. 63.)
§ 16-20—4. Air pollution control commission — Composition; ap-
pointment and terms of members; vacancies; compen-
sation and expenses of members; organization juid per-
sonnel; appointment of director; records; meetings.
The "air pollution control commission," heretofore created, shall con-
tinue in existence as an agency of the State but on and after the effective
date of this act [June 9, 1967] shall consist of seven members, including
the State director of health and the commissioner of agriculture, who shall
be members ex officio, and five other members to be appointed by the
governor with the advice and consent of the senate, two of whom shall be
representative of industries engaged in business in this State, and three
268
of whom shall be representative of the public at large. The three appointed
members of the commission in office on the effective date of this act shall,
unless sooner removed, continue to serve until their terms expire and until
their successors have been appointed and have qualified. On or before
June fifteen, one thousand nine hundred sixty-seven, the governor shall
appoint one member to serve until June thirty, one thousand nine hundred
seventy, and one member to serve until June thirty, one thousand nine
hundred seventy-one, or until their successors have been appointed and
have qualified. As the terms of the three appointed members of the com-
mission in office on the effective date of this act expire and as the terms
of the two members to be appointed by the governor on or before June
fifteen, one thousand nine hundred sixty-seven, expire, members shall be
appointed for overlapping terms of five years, so that one term expires
each year, or until their successors have been appointed and have qualified.
Any vacancy in the office of an appointed member of the commission shall
be filled by appointment by the governor for the unexpired term of the
appointed member whose office shall be vacant.
The ex officio members of the commission shall receive no salary or
remuneration for their services as such but they shall be reimbursed, out
of moneys appropriated for such purpose, for all reasonable and necessary
expenses actually incurred in the discharge of their duties as such.
As compensation for his services on the commission, each appointed
member shall receive, out of moneys appropriated for such purpose, the
sum of fifty dollars for each day or substantial portion thereof that he is
actually engaged in the work of the commission. Each member shall also
be entitled to be reimbursed, out of moneys appropriated for such purpose,
for any reasonable and necessary expenses actually incurred in the dis-
charge of his duties as a member of the commission.
At its first meeting the commission shall elect from its membership a
chairman, and at the first meeting in each fiscal year thereafter the com-
mission shall elect from its membership a chairman to act during such
fiscal year. At similar times the commission shall appoint a secretary,
who need not be a member of the commission. The commission shall
appoint and employ a director and such personnel as may be required,
whose duties shall be defined by the commission and whose compensation,
to be fixed by the commission, shall be paid out of the State treasury, upon
the requisition of the commission, from moneys appropriated for such
purposes.
The commission may establish rules for the regulation of its affairs
and the conduct of all proceedings before it. All proceedings of the com-
mission shall be entered in a permanently bound record book, properly
indexed, and the same shall be carefully preserved. Copies of orders en-
tered by the commission, as well as copies of papers or documents filed
with it, or the records of proceedings before the commission, shall be at-
tested by the secretary of the commission. The commission shall meet at
such times and places as may be agreed upon by the commissioners, or
269
upon the call of the chairman of the commission or any two commissioners,
all of which meetings shall be general meetings for the consideration of
any and all matters which may properly come before the commission.
(1961,c. 63;1967, c. 13.)
Efifect of amendment of 1967. — The
amendment rewrote this section.
§ 16-20-5. Same — Powers and duties; legal services; rules and
regulations; public hearings.
The commission is hereby authorized and empowered :
(1) To develop ways and means for the regulation and control of pollu-
tion of the air of the State ;
(2) To advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of the State,
political subdivisions of the State, other states, agencies of the federal
government, industries, and with affected groups in furtherance of the
declared purposes of this article ;
(3) To encourage and conduct such studies and research relating to air
pollution and its control and abatement as the commission may deem
advisable and necessary ;
(4) To adopt and to promulgate reasonable regulations, not inconsis-
tent with the provisions of this article, relating to the control of air pollu-
tion: Provided, that no rule or regulation of the commission shall specify
the design of equipment, type of construction, or particular method which
a person shall use to reduce the discharge of air pollutants, nor shall any
such rule or regulation apply to any aspect of an employer-employee re-
lationship ;
(5) To enter orders requiring compliance with the provisions of this
article and the regulations lawfully promulgated hereunder ;
(6) To consider complaints, subpoena witnesses, administer oaths,
make investigations, and hold hearings relevant to the promulgation of
regulations and the entry of compliance orders hereunder ;
(7) To encourage voluntary cooperation by municipalities, counties,
industries and others in preserving the purity of the air within the State ;
(8) To employ personnel, including specialists and consultants, pur-
chase materials and supplies, and enter into contracts necessary, incident
or convenient to the accomplishment of the purposes of this article ;
(9) To enter at reasonable times upon any private or public property
for the purpose of investigating an alleged statutory air pollution: Pro-
vided, however, that no such investigation shall extend to information re-
lating to secret processes or methods of manufacturing or production ;
(10) Upon reasonable evidence of a violation of this article, which pre-
sents an imminent and serious hazard to public health, to give notice to
the public or to that portion of the public which is in danger by any and
all appropriate means ;
(11) To cooperate with, receive and expend money from the federal
government and other sources ;
270
(12) To represent the State in any and all matters pertaining to plans,
procedures and negotiations for interstate compacts in relation to the
control of air pollution ; and
(13) To appoint technical advisory councils from such areas of the
State as it may determine. Each such council so appointed shall consist of
not more than five members for each area so designated, at least two of
whom shall be truly representative of industries operating within such
area, and may advise and consult with the commission about all matters
pertaining to the regulation, control and abatement of air pollution within
such area.
The attorney general and his assistants and the prosecuting attorneys
of the several counties shall render to the commission without additional
compensation such legal services as the commission may require of them
to enforce the provisions of this article.
No rule or regulation of the commission pertaining to the control, re-
duction or abatement of air pollution shall become effective until after at
least one public hearing thereon shall have been held by the commission
within the State. Notice to the public of the time and place of any such
hearing shall be given by the commission at least thirty days prior to the
scheduled date of such hearing by advertisement published as a Class II
legal advertisement in compliance with the provisions of article three [§
59-3-1 et seq.], chapter fifty-nine of this Code, and the publication area
for such publication shall be the county wherein such hearing is to be held.
Full opportunity to be heard shall be accorded to all persons in attendance
and any person, whether or not in attendance at such hearing, may submit
in writing his views with respect to any such rule or regulation to the
commission within thirty days after such hearing. After such thirty-day
period, no views or comments shall be received in writing or otherwise,
unless formally solicited by the commission. The proceedings at the hear-
ing before the commission shall be recorded by mechanical means or
otherwise as may be prescribed by the commission. Such record of pro-
ceedings need not be transcribed unless requested by an interested party,
in which event the prevailing rates for such transcripts will be required
from such interested party. (1961, c. 63 ; 1963, c. 76 ; 1967, c. 105.)
Effect of amendment of 1967. — The former last sentence thereof which for-
amendment, effective May 1, 1967, made merly provided that the commission might
changes in the last paragraph with re- solicit comments in writing from parties
gard to publication of notice, added the affected or interested in proposed rules
fourth sentence thereof, and deleted a and regulations.
§ 16-20-6. Issuance of cease and desist orders by director; service;
appeals to commission: hearings, subpoenas, etc.; or-
ders and findings of commission.
If, from any investigation made by him or from any complaint filed
with him, the director shall be of the opinion that a person is violating
the provisions of this article, or any rules and regulations promulgated
271
pursuant thereto, he shall make and enter an order directing such person
to cease and desist such activity. The director shall fix a reasonable time
in such order by which such activity must stop or be prevented. The order
shall contain the findings of fact upon which the director determined to
make and enter such order.
The director shall cause a copy of any such order to be served upon
such person by registered or certified mail or by any proper law enforce-
ment officer.
Any person upon whom a copy of such final order has been served may
appeal such order to the air pollution control commission in the manner
hereinafter provided. The person so appealing shall be known as the ap-
pellant and the director shall be known as the appellee. Such appeal shall
be perfected by filing a notice of appeal, on the form prescribed by the
commission for such purpose, with the commission within fifteen days
after the date upon which the appellant received a copy of the order. The
notice of appeal shall set forth the order complained of and the grounds
upon which the appeal is based. The filing of such notice of appeal shall
stay the effect of the order complained of until final determination thereof
is made by the commission. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be filed
by the commission with the director within eight days after the notice of
appeal is filed with the commission.
Within seven days after receipt of his copy of the notice of appeal, the
director shall prepare and certify to the commission a complete record of
the proceedings out of which the appeal arises, including all documents
and correspondence in the director's file relating to the matter in ques.-
tion. The commission shall hear the appeal de novo, and evidence may be
offered on behalf of the appellant and appellee.
All of the pertinent provisions of article five [§ 29A-5-1 et seq.], chap-
ter twenty-nine-A of this Code shall apply to and govern the hearing on
appeal authorized by the provisions of this section and the administrative
procedures in connection with and following such hearing, with like effect
as if the provisions of said article five were set forth in extenso in this
section, except that any such appeal hearing shall be held in the county
wherein the alleged statutory air pollution complained of originated.
Any such appeal hearing shall be conducted by a quorum of the com-
mission. For the purpose of conducting any such appeal hearing, any mem-
ber of the commission and the secretary thereof shall have the power and
authority to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum in the name of
the commission, in accordance with the provisions of section one [§ 29A-
5-1], article five, chapter twenty-nine-A of this Code. All subpoenas and
subpoenas duces tecum shall be issued and served within the time and for
the fees and shall be enforced, as specified in section one, article five of
said chapter twenty-nine-A, and all of the said section one provisions deal-
ing with subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum shall apply to subpoenas
and subpoenas duces tecum issued for the purpose of an appeal hearing
hereunder.
272
Any such hearing shall be held within twenty days after the date upon
which the commission received the timely notice of appeal, unless there is
a postponement or continuance. The commission may postpone or continue
any hearing on its own motion, or upon application of the appellant or
the appellee for good cause shown. The director shall be represented at
any such hearing by the attorney general or his assistants. At any such
hearing thfe appellant may represent himself or be represented by an at-
torney at law admitted to practice before any circuit court of this State.
After such hearing and consideration of all of the testimony, evidence
and record in the case, the commission shall make and enter an order
affirming, modifying or vacating the order of the director, or shall make
and enter such order as the director should have entered.
Such order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of
law as specified in section three [§ 29A-5-3] , article five, chapter twenty-
nine-A of this Code, and a copy of such order and accompanying findings
and conclusions shall be served upon the appellant, and his attorney of
record, if any, and upon the appellee in person or by registered or certified
mail. The order of the commission shall be final unless vacated or modified
upon judicial review thereof in accordance with the provisions of section
seven [§ 16-20-7] of this article. (1961, c. 63; 1963, c. 76; 1967, c. 13.)
Effect of amendment of 1967. — The
amendment rewrote this section.
§ 16-20-7. Appeals from orders of commission.
Any person whose interest shall have been substantially affected by
an order of the commission may appeal from such order or decision by
filing with the commission a written notice of appeal. Such notice shall
be filed within thirty days from the date notice of the order or decision
of the commission was given to such person, and shall be signed by
him or his attorney. Within thirty days from the receipt of the notice of
appeal, the commission shall prepare and forward to the appellant or
his attorney a copy of a full transcript of the proceedings, together with
a copy of the order or decision of the commission and a copy of the no-
tice of appeal, and at the same time shall file a transcript of the proceed-
ings before the commission and the other documents mentioned above
with the clerk of the circuit court herein designated. All documents shall be
duly certified by the secretary of the commission. The court shall there-
after have complete jurisdiction of the matter.
The appeal shall be taken to the circuit court of the county wherein
the alleged statutory air pollution complained of originated. The circuit
court to which any such appeal shall have been taken, or the judge there-
of, shall fix a time for the hearing of the appeal and shall, after such
hearing, without a jury, by order entered of record, afiirm, modify or
set aside in whole or in part the order of the commission. The said court
shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the trans-
cript of the proceedings before the commission and upon any additional
273
evidence adduced before said court, the right to adduce such additional
evidence being hereby reserved to the commission or to any person sub-
stantially affected by the order of the commission. In the event the cir-
cuit court shall affirm or modify the commission's order that a statutory
air pollution exists under the provisions of this article, the order of the
court shall specify that such pollution shall be corrected within a reason-
able period of time to be fixed therein. The commission or any person
whose interests shall have been substantially affected by the final order
of the circuit court may appeal to the supreme court of appeals in the
manner prescribed by law.
An appeal to a circuit court or to the supreme court of appeals shall
serve to stay the order of the commission or circuit court, as the case
may be, pending final determination thereof. (1961, c. 63.)
§ 16-2Q-8. Penalties; recovery and disposition; duties of prose-
cuting attorneys.
Any person who shall fail or refuse to comply with any final order made
and entered hereunder to correct a statutory air pollution within the time
fixed by such order, or any extension of time granted by the commission,
shall be subject to a penalty of not more than one thousand dollars for
each day that such failure or refusal continues after such time has ex-
pired, which penalty may be recovered in a civil action brought by the
commission in the name of the State of West Virginia in the circuit court
of any county wherein such person resides or is engaged in the activity
complained of. The amount of the penalty shall be fixed by the court with-
out a jury. The amount of any such penalties collected by the commission
shall be deposited in the general fund of the State treasury according to
law. Upon a request in writing from the commission, it shall be the duty
of the prosecuting attorney of the county in which any sucn action for
penalties accruing under this section may be brought to institute and
prosecute all such actions on behalf of tne c^mmis^sion.
For the purpose of this section,, violations en separate days shall be
considered separate offenses. (1961, c. 63; 1967, c. 13.)
Effect of amendment of 1867. — The
amendment rev. rote '.his section.
§ 16-20-9. Applications for injunctive relief.
In addition to the remedy provided for in section eight [§ 16-20-8] of
this article and in the absence of reasonable progress toward correction
of the statutory air pollution, the commission may request the prosecuting
attorney of tbj county in which the person resides or is engaged in the
activity complained of to apply to the circuit court of such county for an
injunction to restrain all violations of any final order entered pursuant to
section six [§ 16-20-6] of this article. (1961, c. 63; 1967, c. 13.)
274
Effect of amendment of 1967. — The sion" which formerly appeared following
amendment inserted "person" in lieu of the words "final order."
"defendant" and deleted "of the commis-
§ 16-20-10. Emergencies.
Whenever air pollution conditions in any area of the State become such
as, in the opinion of the commission, to create an emergency and to re-
quire immediate action for the protection of the public health, the com-
mission may, with the written approval of the governor, so find and
enter such order as it deems necessary to reduce or prevent the emis-
sion of air pollutants substantially contributing to such conditions. In
any such order the commission shall also fix a time, not later than
twenty-four hours thereafter, and place for a hearing to be held before
it for the purpose of investigating and determining the factors caus-
ing or contributing to such conditions. A true copy of any such order
shall be served upon persons whose interests are directly prejudiced
thereby in the same manner as a summons in a civil action may be
served, and a true copy of such order shall also be posted on the front
door of the courthouse of the county in which the alleged conditions
originated. All persons whose interests are prejudiced or affected in any
manner by any such order shall have the right to appear in person or
by counsel at the hearing and to present evidence relevant to the sub-
ject of the hearing. Within twenty-four hours after completion of the
hearing the commission shall affirm, modify or set aside said order in
accordance and consistent with the evidence adduced. Any person ag-
grieved by such action of the commission may thereafter apply by peti-
tion to the circuit court of the county for a review of the commission's
action. The circuit court shall forthwith fix a time for hearing de novo
upon the petition and shall, after such hearing, by order entered of rec-
ord, affirm, modify or set aside in whole or in part the order and action
of the commission. Any person whose interests shall have been substan-
tially affected by the final order of the circuit court may appeal the same
to the supreme court of appeals in the manner prescribed by law. (1961,
c. 63.)
§ 16-20-11. Powers reserved to State boau'd of health, locjJ health
boards and political subdivisions; conflicting statutes
repealed.
Nothing in this article shall affect or limit the powers or duties here-
tofore conferred by the provisions of this chapter upon the State board
of health, county health boards, county health officers, municipal health
boards, municipal health officers, combined boards of health or any other
health agency or political subdivision of this State except insofar as such
powers and duties might otherwise be hereafter deemed to apply to the
control, reduction or abatement of air pollution. All existing statutes or
275
parts of statutes are, to the extent of their inconsistencies with the pro-
visions of this article and to the extent that they might otherwise be
deemed to apply to the control, reduction or abatement of air pollution,
hereby repealed : Provided, however, that no ordinance heretofore adopted
by any municipality relating to the control, reduction or abatement of air
pollution shall be deemed repealed by this article. (1961, c. 63.)
§ 16-20-12. Severability.
The provisions of this article are severable and if any provision, sec-
tion or part thereof shall be held invalid, unconstitutional or inappli-
cable to any person or circumstance, such invalidity, unconstitutionality
or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining pro-
visions, sections or parts of the article or their application to him or to
other persons and circumstances. It is hereby declared to be the legis-
lative intent that this article would have been adopted if such invalid or
unconstitutional provision, section or part had not been included there-
in. (1961, c. 63.)
§ 16-20-13. Effective date of rules and regulations.
The rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the provisions of
this article shall be of no effect until one year after the effective date of
this article [one year after June 6, 1961] . (1961, c. 63.)
276
WEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
Air Pollution Control Conunission
Chapter 16-20
Series I
(1965)
Subject: To Prevent and Control Air Pollution from Coal Refuse
Disposal Areas.
Section 1. Definitions.
1.01. "Air Pollution" - The term 'statutory air pollution* shall
have the meaning ascribed to it in section two of chapter sixteen,
article twenty of the code of VJest Virginia, 1931, as amended.
1.02. "Coal Refuse." - Any combination of carbonaceous waste with
rock, shale, culm, boney, slate, clay, and related materials assoc-
iated with or near a coal seam, which are either brought above ground
or otherwise removed from the mine in the process of mining coal, or
which are separated from coal during the cleaning or preparation
operations, provided, however, that coal refuse shall not mean over-
burden from strip-mining operations or incombustible materials from
mine shafts and mine tunnels.
1.03. "Coal Refuse Pile" - Any deposit of coal refuse on the sur-
face which is intended as a permanent disposal of or long-term storage
of such material. Continuous deposits of coal refuse and deposits which
are not separated shall be considered a single coal refuse pile.
l.Ot. "Coal Refuse Disposal Area" - Any area or plot of land which
is used as a place for dumping, storage, or disposal of coal refuse.
A coal refuse pile must be contained in a single coal refuse disposal
area; however, a coal refuse disposal area may contain two (2) or more
coal refuse piles if the area is so designated.
277
1.05 "Operate" - The act of disposing, depositing or dumping
of coal refuse upon a coal refuse disposal area or of physically
altering the coal refuse disposal area, except by removal of ashes,
red dog, or other material from a burned-out coal refuse pile.
Other words and phrases used in this regulation, unless otherwise
indicated, shall have the meaning ascribed to them in section two of
chapter sixteen, article twenty of the code of West Virginia, 1931,
as amended.
Section 2. Registration.
2.01 Within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this
regulation all persons operating coal refuse disposal areas within
the State on the effective date of this regulation shall have regis-
tered with the Commission on forms to be made available by the Com-
mission, the name of the person, company or corporation operating
the disposal area, the address, location, county, ownership (lessee
and lessor), the principal officer of the company, or the manager of
the mine, and any other such reasonable information as is needed.
2.02 After the effective date of this regulation all persons
who intend to establish coal refuse disposal areas shall register with
the Commission, on forms made available by the Commission, the name of
the person, company or corporation that will operate the disposal area,
the address, location, county, ownership (lessee and lessor), the
principal officer of the company or the manager of the mine and other
such reasonable information as is needed.
2.03 notification in writing is to be given to the Commission
when the operation of a coal refuse area is to be permanently dis-
continued.
278
2.0U Notification in writing is to be given to the Commission
within thirty (30) days after the ownership or operation of a coal
refuse disposal area changes.
2.05 It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a coal
refuse disposal area unless such area has been registered.
Section 3. Standards.
In order to prevent and control air pollution from coal refuse
disposal areas, the operation of coal refuse disposal areas shall be
conducted in accordance with the standards established by this Section.
3.01 Coal refuse is not to be deposited on any coal refuse dis-
posal area unless the coal refuse is deposited in such a manner as to
minimize the possibility of ignition of the coal refuse.
3.02 Coal refuse disposal areas shall not be so located with
respect to mine openings, tipples, or other mine buildings, unpro-
tected coal outcrops or steam lines, that these external factors will
contribute to the ignition of the coal refuse on such coal refuse dis-
posal areas.
3.03 Vegetation and combustible materials shall not be left on
the ground at the site where a coal refuse pile is to be established,
unless it is rendered inert before coal refuse is deposited on such
site.
3.04 Coal refuse shall not be dumped or deposited on a coal
refuse pile known to be burning, except for the purpose of controlling
the fire or where the additional coal refuse will not tend to ignite
or where such dumping will not result in statutory air pollution.
279
3.05 Materials with low ignition points used in the production
or preparation of coal, including but not limited to wood, brattice
cloth, waste paper, rags, oil and grease, shall not be deposited on
any coal refuse disposal area or in such proximity as will reasonably
contribute to the ignition of a coal refuse disposal area.
3.06 Garbage, trash, household refuse, and like materials shall
not be deposited on or near any coal refuse disposal area.
3.07 The deliberate ignition of a coal refuse disposal area or
the ignition of any materials on such an area by any person or persons
is prohibited.
Section H, Burning Coal Refuse Disposal Areas.
Each burning coal refuse disposal area which allegedly causes air
pollution shall be investigated by the Commission.
4.01 Each coal refuse disposal area which causes air pollution
shall be considered on an individual basis by the Commission. Consis-
tent with the declaration of policy and purpose set forth in section one
of chapter sixteen, article twenty of the code of West Virginia, 1931,
as amended, as well as the established facts and circumstances of the
particular case, the Commission shall determine and may order after a
proper hearing the effectuation of those air pollution control measures
which are adequate for each such coal refuse disposal Area.
4.02 With respect to all burning coal refuse disposal areas,
the person responsible for such coal refuse disposal areas or the
land on which such coal refuse disposal areas are located shall use
due diligence to control air pollution from such coal refuse disposal
areas. Consistent with the declaration of policy and purpose set forth
in section one of chapter sixteen, article twenty of the code of
280
West Virginia, 19 31, as anended, the Commission shall determine what
constitutes due diligence with respect to each such burning coal refuse
disposal area. V/hen a study of any burning coal refuse disposal area
by the Commission establishes that air pollution exists or may be
created, the person responsible for such coal refuse disposal area or
the land on which such coal refuse disposal area is located shall sub-
mit to the "Commission a report setting forth satisfactory methods and
procedures to eliminate, prevent, or reduce such air pollution. The
report shall be submitted within such time as the Commission shall
specify. The report for the elimination, prevention or reduction of
air pollution shall contain sufficient information, including completion
dates, to establish that such program can be executed with due dili-
gence. If such report is not submitted as requested or if the Com-
mission determines that the methods and procedures set forth in such
report are not adequate to reasonably control such air pollution, then
a hearing will be held pursuant to the procedures established by
Code 16-20-6.
Section 5. Effective Date.
Regulation I shall become effective on the 1st day of January,
196U.
The foregoing is a true and correct copy of the VJest Virginia
Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation I as adopted on the
15th day of November, 1963.
Carl G. Beard, II
Secretary
West Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission
281
WEST VIRGINIA AD^'ir-ISTPATIVE PEGULAT irir:S
Air Pollution Control Commission
Chanter 16-20
Series II
(1966)
Subject: ReFulation II - To Prevent and Control Air Pollution
From Combustion of Fuel in Indirect Heat Excharpers.
Section 1. Scope of This Peculation.
1.01. The effective area of this re^^ulation will be the
Kanawha Valley air basin starting at the junction of the
Gauley and i:ew Rivers and terninatin?; at the center of
the 'vinfield Loc^.s and extending a distance of three (3)
statute niles, measured horizontally, with no reference
to terrain, on each side of the center line of the
Kanawha River.
Section 2. Definitions .
2.01. ''Air Pollution", 'statutorv air pollution' shall have
the meaninf^ ascribed to it in Section Two of Chapter 'Six-
teen, Article Twenty of the Code of .I'est Virginia, 19 31,
as amended.
2.02. "Commission' shall mean the '.-/est Virpir.ia Air ^'ollution
Control Coiir.ission.
2.03. 'Person' sh.all ::iean any and all persoi'.s, natural or
artificial, includin'^ anv municipal, public or private
corporation or-'.anized or existing under tlie laws of this
or any other state or count", and any fir:T>, partnership
or association of whatever nature.
282
AdJT.. ?.ez- 16-20 Sec. 2.0M
Series II
2.04. "Fuel Burning Equipment" shall mean and include any
furnace, boiler apparatus, device, mechanism, stack or
structure used in the process of burninf^ fuel, or other
combustible material for the primarv purpose of producing
heat or power by indirect heat transfer.
2.95. "fuel'' shall mean a fuel such as anthracite, or semi-
anthracite, bituminous or sub-biturr>.inous coal, lignite,,
or coke breeze, which is fired in fuel burning equipment
as a solid. '.Vhen p,as , liquids or any products or by-
products of a manufacturinc process are substituted for
or used in conjunction v;ith any of the above fuels, the
same re.'^ulation will apply.
2.C6. 'Tly Ash'' shall mean particles of t^as-borne matter
arising from the combustion of fuel as defined by defini-
tion 2.05.
2. 07. "Smoke" shall mean small ras-borne and air-borne
particles arising from a process of combustion in suffic-
ient number to be visible.
2.08. "Pinfelnann Smoke Chart" shall be the '^in<?clmann ' s
Scale for Cradinr t>;e Tensitv of Smoke published by the
U.S. Bureau of Mines as information circular 7718, Aut^ust,
1955, or any chart, recorder, indicator, device which is
a standaraizad --.ethod for the reasuroment of snokc dersitv
■.-hie: is aroroved ty the Commission as the equivalent of
said ~ in,-'2lmann ' 3 Scale.
283
Adm. Re^^. 16-23 Sec. 2.09
Series II
2.09. "Pulverized Fuel Surnin?, Equip'^ent" - Fuel burning
equipment in which is burned fuel which has been pulver-
ized so that at least 90 percent will pass through a 100
nesh U.S. standard sieve.
2.10. "New Equipnent" -
(a) All fuel burr.int^ equip-nent installed after the
adoption of this rep.ulation.
(b) Existinp, equipnent will be reclassified as new equin-
nent when modifications or changes aTountin^^ to 30*- of
the replacement cost of the entire steam t'eneratinc, unit
(but not including air pollution control equipment) are
made in any 12-month period, or when any chanp.es are made
in the cor.bustion equipment which si^ni f icantlv alters the
combustion characteristics. Prior to making such chanrrss ,
a written notice of intent, including scheduled comoletion
dates, must be filed with the Commission. After completion,
a report must be submitted to the Commission for their
consideration and decision as to whether the characteristics
hAwe Deen changed sufficiently to iustifv a reclassifica-
tion. This report must be submitted within 45 days after
the completion of the modifications or chanres.
Other words and phrases used in th.is regulation,
unless otherwise indicated, shall h.ive the meanine ascribed
to them in Section Two of Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty
of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended.
284
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 3
Series II
Section 3. Emissions of Smoke and/or Fly Ash Prohibited and
Standards of Measurement.
3.01. Hew Fuel Burning Equipment.
No person shall cause, suffer, allov; or permit
emission of smoke and/or fly ash into the open air from
any fuel burning equipment which is:
(a) As dark or darker in shade or appearance as
that designated as l.'o. 1 on the Rineelmann Smoke Chart.
3.02. Existing Fuel Burning Equipment.
iJo person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
emission of smoke and/or flv ash into the open air from
any fuel burning equipment which is:
(a) As dark or darker in shade or appearance as
that designated as IJo. 2 on the Ringelriann Smoke Chart.
3.03. The Provisions of Sub-sections 3.01 and 3.02 of this
Section Shall ilot Apply To:
(a) Smoke and/or fly ash emitted durinp the build-
ing of a new fire, tlie shade or appearance of which is
less than 'io. 3 of the Rinf-elm.ann Smoke Chart for a
period or periods aggregating no more than 8 minutes in
any hour.
(b) Smoke and/or fly ash emitted during the clean-
ing of a fire box or soot blowing tlie shade or appearance
of which is less than iio. 3 of the Ringelmann Smoke Chart
for a period or periotls agj^i^sgat ing no more than 8 minutes
per boiler for any 8 hour period.
285
Adm. Rer;. 16-20 Sec. 3.04
Series II
3.04. The equivalent opacitv of those RingelT^ann number-;
in (a) of sub-section 3.01 and sub-section 3.02 and (a)
and (b) of sub-section 3.03 of this section shall be used
as a guide in the enforcemenc of Section 4 of this regu-
lation .
Section 4. Control and Prohibiti on of Flv Ash.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit "flv
ash caused by the coT-.bustion of fuel to be discnarped
froiT': any stack or chinney into the open air in excess
of the quantity set forth in the followinp table:
4.01. Existing Fuel Burninr Equipment - (In existence on
the effective date of this regulation).
Heat Input In .'-'illion Maxinun Allowable Emissions
British Thermal Units of Fly Ash in ^ounds Per Million
Per Hour British Thermal Units Input
Per iiour
10 0.75
20 0.64
30 0.58
4 0.54
50 0.51
70 0.47
100 0.43
200 0.37
300 0.33
4 0.31
500 . 30
700 0.27
1000 £ above 0.25
286
Adm. Reg. 16-2C Sec. '♦.02
Series II
U,02. !Iew Fuel Burning Equipment -
Heat Input In Million Maximum Allowable Emission
British Thermal Units Of Fly Ash In Pounds Per Million
Per Hour British Thermal Units Input
Per Hour
10 0.56
20 0.U8
30 0.k3
HO O.UO
SO 0.38
70 0.35
100 0.33
200 0.28
300 0.25
t»00 0.23
500 0.22
700 0.20
1000 £ above 0.19
For a heat content between any tv;o consecutive heat
contents stated in this table, the fly ash limitation
shall be as determined by interpolation. For the pur-
poses hereof, the heat input shall be the aggregate heat
content, based on the higher heating value, of all fuels
whose products of combustion pass through such stack or
chimney. This is defined as follows:
287
Adr. Reg. lG-23 Sec. ^.02 (a)
Series II
(a) When two or nore fuel-burnini^ units are connected
to a single stack, the corr.^ined heat input of all units
co-nnected to the stack shall be used to determine the
allowable emission fron the stack.
(b) '.'hen the discharge from a single unit of combust-
ion equipment is discharged to the open air through two or
more stacks, the total heat input to the combustion equip-
ment shall be used to determine the allowable emission
from the unit of combustion equipment.
(c) No person shall circumvent this regulation by
acding additional stacks to existing fuel burning equip-
ment .
U.03. The Commission shall give consideration to the use of
'"super-high" dispersion stacks in addition to the emission
limitations detailed in this section of the regulation.
For the purposes of this regulation, a "super-high" stack
is defined as one naving sufficient height and/or exit
velocity to assure piercinp of inversion layers.
Section 5. Registration.
5.01. Persons burnir.g fuel, whose proJucts of combustion are
discharged into tnc open air from a stack or chirn^v, shall
register with the >.'est Virginia Air Pollution Control Con-
r-.ission ir.forrr.at ion for each stack or chi'-in-?-/ relatin? to
place, type of faol burned, heat in fuel burned, quantitv
of fuel buri.ea per hour, description of combustion equip-
ment, period of operation, hei?ht and size of outlet, and
288
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 5.02
Series II
description of dust-removal equipnent, on forms provided
for that purpose by the Cofimission.
5.02. Such infornation shall be submitted to the '.'est Vir-
ginia Air Pollution Control Commission in the case of
existinf installations within 45 days from the effective
d.ite of this regulation and in the case of new or altered
installations, within 30 days after beinf placed in service.
Fror.i tire to time, additional reports concerning t]iese
items may be requested by the Coum.ission.
Section 6. Reports.
G.Ol. At such reasonable times as the Commission may require,
the owner of fuel burning equipment may be requested to
conduct or have conducted stack tests to determine the dust
loadinr in flue gas when the Commission has reason to believe
that this regulation is Deing violated. Such tests shall
be conducted in such manner as the Commission may specify
and be filed on the forms and in the manner acceptable to
the Commission. The Commission may at its option witness
or conduct such stack tests.
6.02. Tl>e operators of fuel burning equipment shall submit
data on the fuel used in such equipnent. Such data shall
be reported in the manner the Commission may specify not
to exceed one report per month. Such reports must be filed
within 15 days of the end of the established reporting
period and will include, but not necessarily be limited
to content such as ash, sulfur, moisture, volatile matter,
quantities, British Thermal Units value, etc., but not
including fuel price.
289
Adn. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 6.03
Series II
6.03. When products or by-products of a manufacturing process
are used as a fuel, the British Themal Units value, sulfur,
metals, volatile halogens, and ash content of such materials,
as well as the quantities used shall be reported.
Section 7. Variance .
7.01. Where emission sources in existence prior to the adopt-
ion of this regulation do not meet the particulate matter
emission limitations noted above, then an acceptable program
to meet the emission linitations shall be developed and
offered to the Commission by the person owning the equip-
ment causing the emission. This program shall be submitted
upon the request of and within such time as shall be fixed
by the Conmission, and after said program has been approved
by the Commission, the owner of the equipment causing the
emission shall not be in violation of this regulation so
long as the propram is observed.
7.02. Due to unavoidable malfunctions of equipment, emissions
exceeding those provided for in this regul<^tion may be
permitted by the Connission for periods not to exceed 10
days upon specific '=!pplicat ion to the Comr.''Gsion. Such
application shall be made within 24 hours of the malfunction
or i.'ithin such other time period as the Commission nay
specify. In cases of r.njor equipment failure, additional
tire periods may be granted by the Ccirr.ission provided a
corrective proprai. has been submitted by the operator and
approved by the Commission.
290
Adm. Re^. 16-20
Series II
Sec. 8
Section 3. E xenptions .
8.01. All residential fuel burninc, equipment as well as
fuel burnin;^ equipment used solely for heatin^ apartment
buildings up to and includinfr six (5) apartments, shall
be exempt from this reH;ulation.
8.02. All fuel burnin;' equipment havina a heat input under
10 million British Thermal Units per hour will be exempt
from Section 4 and Section 5 of this regulation.
Section ^. E ffective Date.
Ret^ulation II shall become effective April U, 1GR5.
The foregoinE is a true and correct copv of the '.'est
Virtrinia Air "ollutic-. Control Commission Peculation II as adopted
on the 17th cav of February, 1965.
Carl G. oeard, II
Secretarv
'.lest Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission
291
WEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
Air Pollution Control Conunission
Chapter 16-20
Series III
(1966)
Subject: Regulation III - To Prevent and Control Air Pollution
From the Operation of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants.
Section 1. Definitions.
1.01. "Air Pollution", 'statutory air pollution' shall have the
meaning ascribed to it in Section Two of Chapter Sixteen,
Article Twenty of the Code of West Virginia, as amended.
1.02. "Commission" shall mean the West Virginia Air Pollution
Control Commission.
1.03. "Person" shall mean any and all persons, natural or arti-
ficial, including any municipal, public or private corporation
organized or existing under the law of this or any other state
or county and any firm, partnership, or association of whatever
nature.
1.0*4. "Fuel Burning Equipment" shall mean and include any
chamber, apparatus, device, mechanism, stack or structure
used in the process of burning fuel or other combustible
material for the primary purpose of producing heat for direct
heat transfer as applied to an asphaltic hot mix plant exclud-
ing internal combustion engines.
1.05. "Fuel" shall mean a fuel such as gas or liquid fuel which
is fired in fuel burning equipment. When solid fuels are sub-
stituted for or used in conjunction with either of the above
fuels, the same regulation will apply.
292
Adm. Reg. 13-20 Sec. 1.06
Series III
1.06. "Plant" shall mean an 'asphaltic hot mix plant' which
shall mean and include all the equipment utilized in the
manufacture of asphaltic hot mix concrete, such as burner,
drier, elevators, screens, mixer, weighing equipment, bins,
air pollution control equipment, etc.
1.07. "Air Pollution Control Equipment" is defined as:
(a) Primary collection - That equipment such as cyclones
or multicyclones incorporated for the collection of fine
particulate material generated and emitted principally from
the drying operation and from which all collected material
may or may not be reinjected into the main aggregate flow.
(b) Secondary collection - That equipment such as multi-
cyclones, scrubbers, bag filters, and electrostatic percipita-
tors incorporated for the collection of that particulate material
not collected by the primary collection equipment and from
which such collected material may or may not be reinjected
into the main aggregate flow.
1.08. "Smoke" shall mean small gasborne and airborne particles
arising from a process of combustion in sufficient numbers to
be visible.
1.09. , "Ringelmann Smoke Chart" shall be the Ringelmann's Scale
for Grading the Density of Smoke published by the U. S.
Bureau of Mines as information circular 7718, August, 1955,
or any chart, recorder, indicator, or device which is a
standardized method for the measurement of smoke density which
ia approved by the Commission as the equivalent of said
Ringelmann Scale.
293
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 1.10
Series III
1.10. "New Equipment" shall mean all asphaltic hot mix plants
installed after the effective date of this regulation.
1.11. "Fugitive Dust" shall mean any and all particulate matter
generated by the operation of an asphalt mix plant which, if
not confined, would be emitted directly to the atmosphere
from points other than the stack outlet.
1.12. "Fugitive Dust Control System" shall mean any equipment or
method used to confine, collect, and dispose of fugitive dust,
including hoods, bins, duct work, fans, air pollution control
equipment, etc.
Other words and phrases used in this Regulation, unless
otherwise indicated, shall have the meaning ascribed to them
in Section Two of Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty of the Code
of West Virginia, 1931, as amended.
Section 2. Emission of Smoke Prohibited and Standards of Measurement.
2.01. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emission of
smoke into the open air from any fuel burning equipment which is
as dark or darker in shade or appearance as that designated as
No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart.
2.02. The provisions of Sub-Section 2.01 of this Section shall
not apply to smoke emitted during the starting operation the
shade or appearance of which is less than No. 3 of the Ringel-
mann Smoke Chart for a period or periods aggregating no more
than u minutes per start-up.
2.03. The equivalent opacity of those Ringelmann numbers in
Sub-Section 2.01 and Sub-Section 2.02 of this Section shall
be used as a guide in the enforcement of Section 3 of this
Regulation .
294
Adn. R«f. 16-20 S«e. 3
Strits III
Section 3. Control and Prohibition of Partlculaf Emi8»len.
3.01. No ptrson shAll causa , suffar, allow or pax^lt partleulata
amiasion from a plant Into tha opan air in axcass of tha
quantity as listad in tha following tabla:
Aggregate Process Rate Stack Emission Rate
Pounds Per Hour Pounds Per Hour
10,000 10
20,000 16
30,000 22
U0,000 28
50,000 31
100,000 33
200,000 37
300,000 "to
MOO, 000 «»3
500,000 U?
600,000 & above SO
For a process weight between any two consecutive process
weights stated in this table, the emission limitation shall ba^
determined by interpolation.
3.02. In the case of more than one stack to a hot mix asphalt
plant, the emission limitation of Sub-Section 3.01 of this
Section will be based on the total emission from all stacks.
3.03. No parson shall cause, suffer, allow or permit a plant to
operate that is not equipped with a fugitive dust control
system. This system shall be operated and maintained in such
a manner as to prevent the emission of particulate material
from any point other than the stack outlet.
3.0'*. The owner or operator of the plant shall maintain dust
control of tha plant premises and plant owned, leased, or
controlled access roads by paving, oil treatment, or other
suitable measures. Good operating practices shall be
observed in relation to stockpiling, screen changing, and
295
Adm. R«g. 16-20 Sec, 3. OH
Strlas III
general maintenance to prevent dust generation and atmospheric
entrainment. Good operating practices, including water
spraying or other suitable measures, shall be employed to
minimize dust generation and atmospheric entrainment when
hot bins are pulled.
Section H. Registration.
U.Ol. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this
regulation, all persons operating asphalt mix plants within
the state shall have registered with the Commission on forros
to be made available by the Commission, the name of the person,
company or corporation operating the plant, the address, loca-
tion, county, ownership (lessee 5 lessor), the principal
officer of the company, and any other such reasonable informa-
tion as the Commission may require including but not necessarily
limited to capacity of the plant, type of fuel used, plant
operating schedule, description of rotary drier, height and
size of stack and description of dust control equipment.
u,02. When such plants are modified by changes in burner design,
heating fuel, fan capacity, drier design, air pollution control
equipment, or like changes which significantly effect the
emission characteristics of the plants then they shall be
re-registered with the Commission defining those changes with-
in thirty (30) days after being placed in operation.
296
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 5
Series III
Section S. Permits.
5.01. Plants in existence on the effective date of this regula-
tion will be granted a temporary operating permit. These
permits will be valid for as long as the Commission shall
designate. When control programs are completed that meet the
requirements of this regulation, these temporary permits will
be replaced with annual operating permits.
5.02. Plants in existence on the effective date of this regula-
tion will be granted an operating permit provided they meet
and maintain the requirements as set forth in this regulation.
These permits will be valid for one calendar year and must be
renewed annually. Any plant failing to maintain these require'
ments shall, at the discretion of the Commission, have their
operating permit revoked.
5.03. When permits are revoked, the Commission will consider
reissuing permits when such changes as necessary to meet the
requirements of this regulation are made by the owner or
operator of the plants.
5.0U. Ten (10) days prior to the operation of a new or relocated
plant, application must be made to the Commission for a
permit. Such application shall be made on forms to be made
available by the Commission and in the manner acceptable to
the Commission. Plants that meet the requirements of this
regulation will be issued an annual permit for operation by
the Commission.
5.05. Plants operating without a permit will be in violation of
this regulation.
297
Adm. Reg. 16-2 Sec. 6
Series III
Section 6. Reports.
6.01. When the Commission has reason to believe that the provi-
sions of this regulation are being violated, the owner of
the plant shall permit the Commission to conduct such stack
tests as necessary to determine the dust loading in the
exhaust gases. The operator will provide all the sampling
connections and sampling ports to be located in such manner
as the Commission may require, power for test equipment and
the required safety equipment such as the necessary scaffolding,
railings, ladders, etc., to comply with generally accepted
good safety practices.
6.02. At such time as the Commission may request, the operator
of the plant will submit data on type, sizing, and quantity of
the aggregate used and the hours of operation.
Section 7. Variance.
7,01. Inhere plants in existence prior to the adoption of this
regulation do not meet the particulate matter emission limita-
tions noted above, then an acceptable control program to meet
the emission limitations shall be developed and offered to the
Commission by the person owning the plant causing the emission.
This control program shall be submitted upon the request of
and within such time as shall be fixed by the Commission, and
after said program has been approved by the Commission, the
owner or operator of the equipment causing the emission shall
not be in violation of this regulation so long as the program
is observed.
298
Adn, Rag. 16>20 Sec. 7.02
Saries T"'"^
7,02. Due to unavoidable malfunctions of equipment, emissions
exceeding ''liose provided for in this regulation may be
permitted by the Commission for periods not to exceed 2 days
upon specific application to the Commission. Such application
shall be made within 2U hours of the malfunction or within
■uoh other time period as the Commission may specify. When
parts are not available for repair the Commission may grant
an extenelon of time for a period longer than 2 days, but
not to exceed 10 days.
Section •• Effeotive D«t«.
Regulation ZIZ ehall beeesM effeotive October 1, 1966.
The foregoing ii • true end correct copy of the Weet Virginia
Air Pollution Control Commiteion Regulation III ae adopted on the 22nd
day of August* 1966.
gy^^^
Carl G. Beard, ZZ
Secretary
Weet Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission
299
WEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATI VL REGULATIONS
Air Pollution Control Commission
Chapter 16-20
Series IV
(1967)
Subject: Regulation IV - To Prevent and Control the Discharge
of Air Pollutants Into the Open Air Which Causes or
Contributes to an Objectionable Odor or Odors.
Section 1. Definitions.
1.01. "Air Pollutants" shall mean solids, liquids, or
gases which, if discharged into the air, will result
in a statutory air pollution.
1.02. "Air Pollution", 'statutory air pollution' shall have
the meaning ascribed to it in Chapter Sixteen, Article
Twenty, Section Two of the Code of West Virginia, as
amended.
1.03. "Commission" shall mean the West Virginia Air Pol-
lution Control Commission.
l.OU. "Person" shall mean any and all persons, natural or
artificial, including any municipal, public or private
corporation organized or existing under the laws of this
or any other state or county, and amy firm, partnership,
or association of whatever nature.
1.05. "Odor" shall mean a sensation resulting from stimu-
lation of the human sense of smell.
300
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 1.06
Series IV
1.06. "Objectionable Odor" - In addition to odors
generally recognized as baing objectionable, an
odor shall be deemed objectionable when in the
opinion of a duly authorized representative of
the Air Pollution Control Conunission, based upon
his investigations or his investigations and com-
plaints, such odor is objectionable.
1.07. "Duly Authorized Representative" shall mean the
Director or such other agent or employee of the
Commission who by virtue of special training and/or
experience is qualified to make determinations
relative to this regulation.
Other words and phrases used in this Regulation,
unless otherwise indicated, shall have the meaning
ascribed to them in Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty,
Section Two of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as
amended.
Section 2. Objectionable Odor Prohibited.
2.01. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
the discharge of air pollutants which cause or
contribute to an objectionable odor at any location
occupied by the public.
301
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 2.02
Series IV
2.02. The Barnebey-Cheney Scentometer or any other
instrument, device, or technique designated by the
Commission may be used as a guide in the enforcement
of the regulation and may be used in the determina-
tion of the objectionability of an odor.
Section 3. Accidental and Other Infrequent Emissions, Reporting.
3.01. Accidental and other infrequent discharges which
cause or contribute to objectionable odors will be
considered on an individual basis and shall be reported
by the person responsible therefor to the Commission in
the manner to be prescribed by the Commission.
Section •♦. Notice of Violation.
U.Ol. No person shall be considered in violation of this
regulation unless notified that he is discharging em
air pollutant or air pollutants which causes or contri-
butes to an objectionable odor.
•4.02. Notification as herein required shall be by regis-
tered or certified letter of notice sent to the person
at his last known address which notice shall set forth
the nature of the violation and inquire such person to
submit a control program within such reasonable time
as the Commission shall specify.
302
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 14 . 3
Series IV
i».03. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
persons operating a control program approved pursuant
to Section 5 of this regulation.
Section 5. Variance.
5.01. When a process or operation results in the dis-
charge of an air pollutant or pollutants which causes
or contributes to an objectionable odor, an acceptable
control program shall be developed and offered to the
Conunission by the person responsible for the discharge
of such air pollutant or pollutants. This control
program shall be submitted in the manner prescribed
by the Commission and within such time as shall be
fixed by the Commission. If such a control program
has been approved by the Commission by the issuance
of a variance, the person responsible for said dis-
charge shall not be considered to be in violation of
this regulation in connection with said discharge so
long as the program is observed.
5.02. The Director may permit, under emergency circum-
stances, the discharge of air pollutants which causes
or contributes to an objectionable odor under specific
conditions for specific time periods. Any person who
303
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 5.02
Series IV
desires such a variance shall make application
to the Director in the manner to be prescribed by
the Director.
Section 6. Exemptions.
6.01. This regulation shall not apply to the following
sources of objectionable odor until such time as
feasible control methods are developed:
(a) Internal combustion engines.
(b) Normal and necessary operations associated
with the production of agricultural products
grown on the premises or livestock, dogs,
oats, and poultz^ grown on the premises.
Section 7. Effective Date.
Regulation IV shall become effective October 1, 1967.
The foregoing is a true and correct copy of the West
Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation IV as
adopted on the 17th day of August, 1967,
Carl G. Beard, II
Secretary
West Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission.
304
WEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
Air Pollution Control Conunission
Chapter 16-20
Series V
(1968)
Subject: Regulation V - To Prevent and Control Air Pollution From
the Operation of Coal Preparation Plants and Coal Handling
Operations.
Section 1. Definitions.
1.01. "Air Pollution", 'statutory air pollution' shall have the
meaning ascribed to it in Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty,
Section Two of the Code of West Virginia, as amended.
1.02. "Commission" shall mean the West Virginia Air Pollution
Control Commission.
1.03. "Person" shall mean any and all persons, natural or
artificial, including any municipal, public or private corpo-
ration organized or existing under the law of this or any
other state or county and any firm, partnership, or associa-
tion of whatever nature.
1.04. "Handling Operation" shall meem eund include but not be
limited to all coal grinding, crushing, picking, screening,
conveying, storing, and stockpiling operations associated
with the transport, production, or preparation of coal or
coal refuse, excluding coal washing, drying, or air separa-
tion operations.
1.05. "Coal Preparation" shall mean and include but not be
limited to all coal washing, drying or air separation
operations used for the purpose of preparing the product
for marketing.
305
Adn. Reg. 16-?; Sec. 1.06
Series V
1.06. "Plant" shall mean and include all equipment and grounds
utilized in an integral complex for coal preparation and
associated handling.
1.07. "Fuel" shall mean a fuel such as a solid, gaseous or
liquid fuel which is fired in fuel burning equipment.
1.08. "Fuel Burning Equipment" shall mean and include any
chamber, apparatus, device, mechanism, stack or structure
used in the process of burning fuel for the primary purpose
of producing heat for a thermal drier.
1.09. "Thermal Drier" shall mean a device using fuel burning
equipment for the primary purpose of reducing the moisture
content of coal.
1.10. "Air Table" shall mean a device using a gaseous separat-
ing media for the primary purpose of improving the product
quality.
1.11. "Air Pollution Control Equipment" shall mean any equip-
ment used for collecting gasborne particulate matter for the
purpose of preventing or reducing particulate emissions into
the open air.
1.12. "Standard Cubic Foot" - One cubic foot of dry gas, measured
at standard conditions of 60°F and 29.92 inches of mercury
column.
1.13. "Stack" - For the purpose of this Regulation shall mean
but not be limited to any duct, control equipment exhaust,
or similar apparatus, which vents gases containing particu-
late matter into the open air.
306
Adra. Reg. 16-20 Sec. l.lu
Series V
I.IU. "Particulate Matter" shall mean any material except
uncombined water, that exists in a finely divided form as
a liquid or solid.
1.15. "Smoke" shall meeui small gasborne and airborne particles
emitted from a stack in sufficient numbers to be visible.
1.16. "Ringelmann Smoke Chart" - Shall be the Ringelmann's
Scale for Grading the Density of Smoke published by the U. S.
Bureau of Mines as information circular 7718, August, 1955,
or any chart, recorder, indicator, device, or method which is
a standardized method for the measurement of smoke density
which is approved by the Commission as the equivalent of
said Ringelmann Scale.
1.17. "Fugitive Dust" - Shall mean any and all particulate
matter generated, which, if not confined, would be emitted
directly into the open air from points other than a stack
outlet.
1.18. "Fugitive Dust Control System" - Shall mefui euiy equip-
ment or method used to confine, collect, and dispose of
fugitive dust, including but not limited to hoods, bins,
duct work, fans, and air pollution control equipment.
Other words euid phrases used in this Regulation, unless
otherwise indicated, shall have the meaning ascribed to them
in Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty, Section Two of the Code
of West Virginia, 1931, as amended.
307
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 2
Series V
Section 2. Lmission of Smoke Prohibited and Standards of
Measurement .
2.01. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emission
of smoke into the open air from any stack which is as dark
or darker in shade or appearance as that designated as No. 1
on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart.
2.02. The provisions of Sub-Section 2.01 of this Section shall
not apply to smoke, the shade or appearance of which is less
than No. 3 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart for a period or
periods aggregating no more than 5 minutes in any 60-minute
period during operation.
2.03. The provisions of Sub-Section 2.01 and 2.02 of this
Section shall not apply to smoke, the shade or appearance
of which is less than No. 3 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart
for a period of up to 8 minutes in any operating day for
the purposes of building a fire of operating quality in
the fuel burning equipment of a thermal drier.
2.01*. The equivalent opacity of those Ringelmann numbers in
Sub-Section 2.01 and Sub-Section 2.02 of this Section shall
be used as a guide in the enforcement of Section 3 and
Section u of this Regulation.
2.05. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emission
of smoke into the open air from any fugitive dust control
system which is as dark or darker in shade or appearance
as that designated as No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart
or the equivalent opacity of this Ringelmann number.
308
AdD. Reg. 16-20
Series V
Sec.
Section 3. Control and Prohibition of Particulate Emissions From
Coal Thermal Drying Operations of a Coal Preparation
Plant.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit particu-
late matter to be vented into the open air from any thermal
drier exhaust in excess of the following limitations:
3.01. Until September 2, 1971, thermal driers installed on or
before March 1, 1970, shall not emit more than 0.15 grains
of particulate matter per st«undard cubic foot of exhaust
gas.
3.02. After September 1, 1971, thermal driers installed on or
before March 1, 1970, shall not exceed the emission limita-
tions of the following table :
Total Plant Volumetric
Flow Rate
(Standard Cubic Feet
Per Minute)
120,000 or less
172,000
2U5,000
351,000
500,000 I above
Maximum Allowable
Particulate Loading Per Driei
(Grains Per Standard
Cubic Foot)
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
3.03. Thermal driers installed after March 1, 1970, shall not
exceed the emission limitations of the following table:
309
Adm. Reg. 16-2U Sec. 3.03
Series V
Total Plant Volumetric Maximum Allowable
Flow Rate Particulate Loadinp, Per Drier
(Standard Cubic Feet (Grains Per Standard
Per Minute) Cubic Foot)
75,000 or less 0.10
111,000 0.09
163,000 0.08
240,000 6 above 0.07
3.04. For the volumetric flow rate between any two consecutive
volumetric flow rates stated in Sub-Section 3.02 and Sub-
Section 3.03, limitations shall be as determined by linear
interpolation. For the purpose hereof, the total volumetric
flow rate shall be the total standard cubic feet of dry gas
passed through all thermal driers at one plant location. This
value shall be determined by methods which are acceptable to
the Commission.
3.05. When modifications are made to plants after March 1, 1970,
that result in a significant increase in the total gas volume
passing through a thermal drier, said drier(s) will be subject
to the emission limitations of Sub-Section 3.0 3 even though
such modifications do not include the installation of a new
thermal drier(s).
3.06. No person shall circumvent this Regulation by adding
additional gas to any drier exhaust or group of drier exhausts
for the purpose of reducing the grain loading.
3.07. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the exhaust
gases from a thermal drier to be vented into the open air at
an altitude of less than 80 leet above the foundation grade
310
Adm. Reg. 16-20 • Sec. 3.07
Series V
of the structure containing the drier or less than 10 feet
above the top of said structure or any adjacent structure,
whichever is greater.
In determining the desirable height of the above stack,
due consideration shall be given to the local topography,
meteorology, the location of nearby dwellings and public
roads, and the stack emission rate.
3.08. Any stack venting thermal drier exhaust gases into the
open air shall contain flow straightening devices or a
vertical run of sufficient length to establish flow patterns
consistent with acceptable stack sampling procedures.
Section k. Control and Prohibition of Particulate Emissions From
an Air Table Operation of a Coal Preparation Plant.
U.Ol. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit particu-
late matter to be vented into the open air from any air
table exhaust in excess of 0.05 grains per standard cubic
foot of exhaust gases.
4.02. No person shall circumvent this Regulation by adding
additional gas to smy air table exhaust or group of air
table exhausts for the purpose of reducing the grain loading.
4.03. Any stack venting air table exhaust gases into the open
air shall contain flow straightening devices or a vertical
run of sufficient length to establish flow patterns consisten
with acceptable stack sampling procedures.
311
Adm. keg. lfa-20 Sec. b
Series V
i.ection b. Control and Prohibition of Fugitive Dust Emissions From
Coal Handling Operations and Preparation Plants.
b.Ol. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit a plant
or handling operation to operate that is not equipped with a
fugitive dust control system. This system shall be operated
cind maintained in such a manner as to minimize the emission
of particulate matter into the open air.
b.02. The owner or operator of the plant or handling operation
shall maintain dust control of the premises and owned, leased,
or controlled access roads by paving, or other suitable
measures. Good operating practices shall be observed in
relation to stockpiling, car loading, breaking, screening,
and general maintenance to minimize dust generation and
atmospheric entrainment.
Section 6. Registration.
6.01. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this
Regulation, all persons owning and/or operating coal prepara-
tion plants within the State shall have registered with the
Commission on forms to be made available by the Commission,
the name of the person, company or corporation operating the
plant, the address, location, county, ownership (lessee 6
lessor), the principal officer of the company, and any other
such reasonable information as the Commission may require,
including, but not necessarily limited to, capacity of the
312
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 6.01
Series V
plant, type of fuel used, plant operating schedule, descrip-
tion and capacities of thennal driers and air tiibles , height
and size of stacks and air pollution control equipment.
6.02. Persons operating registered plants which are to be modi- I
fied by changes in fuel burning equipment, fuel, f^m capacity,
drier design, air pollution control equipment, air tables,
stacks or like changes which could significantly affect the
emission characteristics of the plants shall file with the
Commission those proposed changes not less than thirty (30)
days before such changes are made.
6.03. Within thirty (30) days after the completion of the
modifications as filed under Sub-Section 6.02, the operator
shall register such chemges with the Commission on forms to
be made available by the Commission.
6.0U. Not later than sixty (50) days prior to operation, new
plants shall be registered by the owner and/or operator of
such pleuits. Such registration shall be made on forms to be
made available by the Commission and will include the name
of the person, company, or ownership (lessee & lessor), the
principal officer of the company, and any other such reason-
able information as the Commission may require including, but
not necessarily limited to, data on the capacity of the plamt,
type of fuel to be used, description and capacities of thermal
driers and air tables, height and size of stacks and descrip-
tion of air pollution control equipment.
313
'.,<• f I «TI V
jfC
tion 7. Permits.
7.01. I'lants in existence on the effective date of this Pegula-
tion will be granted temporary operating pemiits subject to
compliance with Sub-oection 6.01. These permits will De valid
for as long as the Commission shall designate. VOien it is
determined by the Commission that a plant meets the require-
ments of this Regulation, the temporary permit will be
replaced with an operating permit.
7.02. Any plant failing to maintain the requirements of this
Regulation shall, at the discretion of the Commission, have
the permit revoked.
7.03. When permits are revoked, the Commission will reissue
permits when such changes as necessary to meet the require-
ments of this Regulation are made.
7.0U. New plants will be granted temporary operating permits
provided they comply with Sub-Section 6.0U.
7.05. Subject to the provisions of Sub-Section 6.01, plants
operating without a permit will be in violation of this
Regulation.
7.06. The possession of a permit by any person shall in no way
relieve the holder thereof of his obligation to comply with
the provisions of this Regulation.
Section 8. Reports and Testing.
8.01. At such reasonable times as the Director may designate,
the operator of a coal preparation plant may be required to
conduct or have conducted stack tests to determine the dust
314
Adm. Reg! 16-20 Sec. 8.01
Series V
loading in exhaust gases when the Director has reason to
believe that the stack emission limitation is being violated.
Such tests shall be conducted in such manner as the Director
may specify and be filed on forms, and in a mamner, acceptable
to the Director. The Director, or his duly authorized repre-
sentative, may at his option witness or conduct such stack
tests. Should the Director exercise his option to conduct
such tests, the operator will provide all the necessary sam-
pling connections and sampling ports to be located in such
manner as the Director may require, power for test equipment,
and the required safety equipment such as scaffolding, rail-
ings, ladders, etc., to comply with generally accepted good
safety practices.
8.02. The Director, or his duly authorized representative, may
conduct such other tests as he may deem necessary to evaluate
air pollution emissions other than those noted in Sub-Section
8.01.
Section 9. Variance.
9.01. If a plant operating under a temporary permit does not
meet the requirements of this Regulation, the operator of
the plant shall develop and submit to the Commission an
acceptable control program to meet these requirements.
This control program shall be submitted upon the request
of and within such time as shall be fixed by the Commission,
and after said program has been approved by the Commission,
the owner or operator of the plant will not be in violation
of this Regulation as long as said program is observed.
315
Aum. Hep,. 16-20
^Je^ies V
jec. 9.02
9.02. iJue to unavoidable malfunctions of equipment or non-
availability of repair parts, emissions exceeding those
provided for in this Regulation may be permitted by the
Commission upon specific application to the Commission.
Such application shall be made within 2u hours of the mal-
function or within such other time pei'iod as the Commission
may specify.
Section 10. Effective Date.
Regulation V shall become effective September 1, 1968.
The foregoing is a true and correct copy of the West Virginia
Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation V as adopted on the
11th day of July, 1968.
Carl G. Beard, II
Secretary
West Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission
316
WEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
Air Pollution Control Commission
Chapter 16-20
Series VI
(1969)
Subject: Regulation VI - To Prevent and Control Air Pollution From
Combustion of Refuse.
Section 1. Intent and Purpose.
1.01. Neither compliance with the provisions of this Regulation
nor the absence of specific language to cover particular situ-
ations constitutes approval or implies consent or condonement
of any emission which is released in any locality in such man-
ner or amount as to cause or contribute to undesirable levels
of air contaminants. Neither does it exempt nor excuse anyone
from complying with other applicable laws, ordinances, regula-
tions or orders of governmental entities having jurisdiction.
1.02. All persons engaged in any form of combustion of refuse
shall give careful consideration to the effects of the resul-
tant emissions on the air quality of the area(s) affected by
such burning. Important considerations include but are not
limited to the location and time of burning, the type of mate-
rial being burned and the potential emissions and the prevail-
ing meteorological conditions. Persons failing to give due
consideration to these factors will be in violation of this
Regulation.
317
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 1.03
Series VI
1.03. It is the intent of the Commission that all incorporated
areas and other local governmental entities prohibit open
burning and develop alternative methods for disposal of waste
material. If such action is not taken in any air basin, air
quality control region or other such areas as the Commission
may designate, then such action may be taken by the Commission
to insure compliance with air quality standards .
Section 2. Definitions.
2.01. "Air Pollution", 'statutory air pollution' shall have the
meaning ascribed to it in Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty,
Section Two, of the Code of West Virginia, as amended.
2.02. "Commission" shall mean the West Virginia Air Pollution
Control Commission.
2.03. "Person" shall mean any and all persons, natural or arti-
ficial, including any municipal, public or private corporation
organized or existing under the law of this or any other state
or county, and any firm, partnership or association of what-
ever nature.
2.04. "Particulate Matter" shall mean any material, except
uncombined water, that exists in a finely divided form as
a liquid or solid.
2.05. "Smoke" shall mean small gasborne and airborne particles
emitted as the result of the combustion of refuse in suffi-
cient numbers to be visible.
318
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 2.06
Series VI
2.06. "Ringelmann Smoke Chart" shall mean the Ringelmann's
Scale for Grading the Density of Smoke, published by the
U. S. Bureau of Mines, or any chart, recorder, indicator,
device or method which is a standardized method for the
measurement of smoke density and is approved by the Com-
mission as the equivalent of said Ringelmann Chart.
2.07. "Air Pollution Control Equipment" shall mean any equip-
ment used for collecting or converting gasborne particulate
or gaseous materials for the purpose of preventing or reduc-
ing emission of these materials into the open air.
2.08. "Incineration" shall mean the destruction of combustible
refuse by burning in a furnace designed for that purpose.
For the purposes of this Regulation, the destruction of any
combustible liquid or gaseous material by burning in a flare/
flare stack shall be considered incineration.
2.09. "Incinerator" shall mean any device used to accomplish
incineration.
2.10. "Flare", 'flare stack' shall mean and include a combustion
source normally comprised of but not limited to a length of
stack or pipe which has an attached burner mechanism designed
to destroy liquid or gaseous material with an open or semi-
enclosed flame.
2.11. "Open Burning" shall mean the combustion of refuse whereby
the gaseous products of combustion are not conveyed through
man-made means from one point to another and are discharged
directly to the open air.
319
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 2.12
Series VI
2.12. "Refuse" shall mean the useless and/or unwanted or dis-
carded solid, liquid and/or gaseous waste materials resulting
from community, commercial, industrial or citizen activities.
2.13. "Construction and Demolition Wastes" shall mean combustible
waste building materials and rubble resulting from construction,
remodeling, repair and demolition operations on houses, com-
mercial buildings, pavements and other structures.
2.m. "Incinerator Capacity" shall be the manufacturer's or
designer's guaranteed maximum charging rate or such other
rate as may be determined by the Director in accordance with
good engineering practices. In case of conflict the determina-
tion by the Director shall govern. For the purposes of this
Regulation the total of the capacities of all furnaces within
one system shall be considered as the "incinerator capacity".
Other words and phrases used in this Regulation, unless
otherwise indicated, shall have the meaning ascribed to them
in Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty, Section Two, of the Code
of West Virginia, 1931, as amended.
Section 3. Open Burning Prohibited.
3.01. General Provisions
The open burning of refuse for the purpose of volume
reduction, elimination or product recovery by any person,
firm, corporation, association or public agency is prohibited
except for the following exemptions:
320
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 3.01
Series VI
(a) Vegetation grovm on the premises of a home or farm,
provided that there is compliance with the provisions of
Sub-Section 1.02, and the health, safety, comfort and
property of persons are protected from the effects of
such burning.
(b) Fires set for the purpose of bona fide instruction
emd training of public and industrial employees in the
methods of fighting fires, provided that approval to
conduct such burning is received from the Director or
his duly authorized representative.
(c) Open burning of construction and demolition wastes,
provided that all the following conditions are met:
(1) There is no practical alternate method for
the disposal of the material to be burned;
(2) The health, safety, comfort and property of
persons are protected from the effects of
such burning;
(3) Such burning shall not be conducted for
salvage purposes; and,
(H) In non-rural areas approval to conduct such
burning is received from the Director or his
duly authorized representative.
(d) Backyard open burning for the reduction of refuse pro-
duced on the premises as long as the amount does not exceed
that weight normally produced by the everyday living habits
of one (1) family, until such families are serviced by a
municipal or private refuse collection service.
321
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 3.02
Series VI
3.02. The exemptions listed in Sub-Section 3.01 are subject
to the following stipulation:
Upon notification by the Director, no person shall cause,
suffer, allow or permit any form of open burning during exist-
ing or predicted periods of atmospheric stagnation. Notifica-
tion shall be made by such means as the Director may deem
necessary and feasible.
Section t . Emission Standards for Incinerators and Incineration.
U.Ol. Unless authorized by the Commission, no person shall cause,
suffer, allow or permit particulate matter to be discharged
from an incinerator into the open air in excess of the quan-
tity determined by use of the following formula:
Emissions (Ib/hr) = F x Incinerator Capacity (tons/hr)
where the Factor, F, is as indicated in Table I below:
Table I: Factor, F, for Determining Maximum Allowable
Particulate Emissions
Incinerator Capacity F Factor
A. 200 Ibs/hr or less 8.25
B. More than 200 Ibs/hr but
less than 15,000 Ibs/hr 5.U3
C. 15,000 Ibs/hr or greater 2.72
322
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 4.02
Series VI
4.02. Emission of Visible Particulate Matter
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emission
of smoke into the atmosphere from any incinerator which is as
dark or darker in shade or appearance than that designated as
No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or the equivalent opacity
of this Ringelmann number.
4.03. The provisions of Sub-Section 4.02 shall not apply to
smoke, the shade or appearance of which is less than No. 2
on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or the equivalent opacity of
this Ringelmann number, for a period or periods aggregating
no more than eight (8) minutes per start-up, or six (6)
minutes in any 60-minute period for stoking operations.
4.04. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the emis-
sion of particles of unburned or partially burned refuse or
ash from any incinerator which are large enough to be individ-
ually distinguished in the open air.
4.05. Incinerators, including all associated equipment and
grounds, shall be designed, operated and maintained so as
to prevent the emission of objectionable odors.
4.06. Incineration of Residues and Hazardous Materials
Persons responsible for the incineration of hazardous
materials such as insecticides, empty insecticide containers,
toxic materials, certain chemical residues, explosives, used
bandages and other medical wastes, pathological wastes, human
and animal remains and other like materials shall give the
323
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 4.06
Series VI
utmost care and consideration to the potential harmful effects
of the emissions resulting from such activities. Evaluation
of these facilities as to adequacy, efficiency and emission
potential will be made on an individual basis by the Commis-
sion working in conjunction with other appropriate governmental
agencies .
Section 5 . Registration.
5.01. Registration of Existing Incinerators
Within sixty (60) days after the effective date of this
Regulation, all persons owning, operating or constructing in-
cinerators within the State shall register with the Commission
on forms to be made available by the Commission. The Director
may require any such reasonable information as he may specify.
5.02. Registration of New Incinerators
New incinerators shall be considered duly registered when
the owner and/or operator thereof has received from the Director
written approval of the plans and specifications submitted,
pursuant to the requirements of Section 6 .
5.03. Registration of Incinerator Modifications
When incinerators are to be modified by changes in charg-
ing method, auxiliary fuel, air pollution control equipment or
like changes which significantly affect the emission charac-
teristics of the incinerator, such proposed changes shall be
registered with the Commission no later than thirty (30) days
prior to their being made.
324
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 6
Series VI
Section 6. New Incinerator Plan Review.
Plans and specifications for proposed incinerators are
to be submitted to the Director at least sixty (60) days
prior to construction for review and approval. These plans
and specifications shall include any such reasonable infor-
mation as the Director may specify.
Section 7. Reports and Testing.
7.01. At such reasonable times as the Director may designate,
the operator of an incinerator may be required to conduct or
have conducted stack tests to determine the dust loading in
exhaust gases, when the Director has reason to believe that
the stack emission limitation is being violated. Such tests
shall be conducted in such manner as the Director may specify
and be filed on forms and in a manner acceptable to the Direc-
tor. The Director, or his duly authorized representative, may
at his option witness or conduct such stack tests. Should the
Director exercise his option to conduct such tests, the opera-
tor will provide all the necessary sampling connections and
sampling ports to be located in such manner as the Director
may require, power for test equipment and the required safety
equipment such as scaffolding, railings and ladders to comply
with generally accepted good safety practices.
7.02. The Director, or his duly authorized representative, may
conduct such other tests as he may deem necessary to evaluate
air pollution emissions other than those noted above.
325
Adm. Reg. 16-20 Sec. 8
Series VI
Section 8 . Variances,
8.01. If it can be demonstrated to the Commission that the dis-
posal of certain materials by any method other than burning
leads to ground water contamination, then the person respon-
sible for the disposal of such materials shall submit to the
Commission within sixty (60) days a program leading to the
construction of a suitable incinerator. If such program is
accepted by the Commission, the person shall not be in viola-
tion as long as the program is observed.
8.02. Due to unavoidable malfunctions of equipment and/or non-
availability of repair parts, emissions exceeding those pro-
vided for in this Regulation may be permitted by the Director.
Application for such variance shall be made within 24 hours of
the malfunction or within such time period as the Director may
specify. These variances shall be valid for such time periods
as the Director may specify.
8.03. Control Program Variance
The owner or operator of an incinerator or an open burn-
ing operation in existence on the effective date of this Regu-
lation that does not meet the Regulation requirements shall
submit a control program to the Commission. This program shall
be submitted upon the request of and within such time as shall
be fixed by the Commission, and after said program has been
approved by the Commission, the owner or operator of such in-
cinerator or open burning operation shall not be in violation
of this Regulation so long as the program is observed.
326
Adm. Reg. 16-20
Series VI
Sec.
Section 9 . Effective Date.
Regulation VI shall become effective September 1, 1969
The foregoing is a true and correct copy of the West Virginia
Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation VI as adopted on the
22nd day of July, 1969.
W<.r;<^
Carl G. Beard, II
Secretary
West Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission
VVEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE REGULAilONS
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION
REGULATION VII
"To Prevent and Control Particulate Air
Pollution From Manufacturing Process
Operations . "
Public hearing will be held on this
Regulation Thursday, April 3, at 10:00
a.m. , House of Delegates Chamber, State
Capitol Building, Charleston, Uest
Virginia .
^^^f^^ u^ • ■ ^ !^'-^ ^ ^^^'^ f^'* f-'' '^"^ '1 - ^ n ^' n^nr,^.
(327)
328
PROPOSLD REGULATIOH
WEST VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION
Subject: REGULATION VII - To Prevent and Control Particulate Air
Pollution From Manufacturing Process Operations.
Section 1. Definitions .
1.01. "Air Pollution", 'statutory air pollution' shall have
the meaning ascribed to it in Section Two of Chapter Sixteen,
Article Twenty of the Code of VJest Virginia, as amended.
1.02. "Commission'' shall mean the West Virginia Air Pollution
Control Comiuission.
1.03. "Person'' shall mean any and all persons, natural or
artificial, including any municipal, public or private
corporation organized or existing under the law of this or
any other state or county and any firm, partnership i or
association of whatever nature.
1.04. "Particulate Matter'' shall mean any material, except
uncombined vjater, that exists in a finely divided form as
a liquid or solid.
1.05. '"Smoke" shall mean small gasborne and airborne particulate
matter emitted from a stack or other aperture in sufficient
numbers to be visible.
1.06. ''Ringelmann Smoke Chart'' shall be the Ringelmann's
Scale for Grading the Density of Smoke published by the U. S.
Bureau of tiines or any chart, recorder, indicator, or device
which is a standardized method for the measurement of smoke
density which is approved by the Commission as the equivalent
of said Ringelmann Scale.
329
PROPOSED REGULATION
1.07. "Fugitive Dust" shall mean any and all particulate
matter generated by any manufacturing process which, if
not confined, would be emitted directly into the open air
from points other than a stack outlet.
1.08. ''Fugitive Dust Control System" shall mean any equip-
ment or method used to confine, collect, and dispose of
fugitive dust, including, but not limited to, hoods, bins,
duct work, fans, and air pollution control equipment.
1.09. "Fuel'' - Shall mean any form of combustible matter that
is used as a source of heat - solid, liquid, vapor, or gas.
1.10. "Air Pollution Control Equipment" shall mean any equip-
ment used for collecting or converting smoke and/or parti-
culate matter for the purpose of preventing or reducing
emission of these materials into the open air.
1.11. "Standard Conditions" - Shall mean for the purposes of
this Regulation a temperature of 60°F and a pressure of
29.92 inches of mercury column.
1.12. "Stack'' - Shall mo -in for the purpcS'-s of this R^gulcition, bu'
not be limited to, any duct, control equipment exhaust, or
similar apparatus, which is designed to vent gases containing
particulate matter into the open air.
1.13. "Plant'' - Shall mean and include all equipment, grounds,
source operations, and any manufacturing process(es) utilized
in an integral complex.
I.IU. ''Manufacturing Process'^ - Shall mean any action, operation
or treatment en.bracing chemical, industrial, or manufacturing
efforts, and employing, for example, heat treating furnaces.
330
PROPOSED REGULATION
by-product coke plants, core-baking ovens, mixing kettles,
cupolas, blast furnaces, open hearth furnaces, heating
and reheating furnaces, puddling furnaces, sintering plants,
electric steel furnaces, ferrous and non-ferrous foundries,
kilns, stills, driers, crushers, grinders, roasters, and
equipment used in connection therewith, and all other methods
or forms of manufacturing or processing that may emit smoke,
particulate matter, or gaseous matter.
1.15. "Process VJeight'' - Shall mean that total weight of all
materials introduced into a source operation, excluding solid,
liquid, and gaseous fuels used solely as fuels, and excluding
air introduced for purposes of combustion.
1.16. "Process Weight Rate'' - Shall mean a rate established
as follows:
(a) For continuous or long-run steady-state source oper-
ations, the total process weight for the entire period of
continuous operation or for a typical portion thereof, divided
by the number of hours of such period or portion thereof.
(b) For cyclical or batch unit operations, or unit
processes, the total process weight for a period that covers
a complete operation or an integral number of cycles, divided
by tfie hours of actual process operation during such a period.
Where the nature of any process or operation or the
design of any equipment is such as to permit more than one
interpretation of this definition, the interpretation that
results in the minimum value for allowable emission shall
apply.
331
f milium \^imi!muMh •
PROPOSED REGULATION
1.17. ''Physical Change'' - Shall mean for the purposes of this
Regulation, any change in a substance which does not change
the properties of the substance. Such changes include but
are not limited to crushing, grinding, drying, change of
state and sizing.
1.18. '^Chemical Change" - Shall mean for the purposes of this
Regulation, any change in a substance which does change the
properties of the substance and by v;hich a new substance is
formed.
1.19. "Source Operation" - Shall mean the last operation in
a manufacturing process preceding the emission of air con-
taminant which operation (a) results in the separation of
the air contaminant fromi the process materials or in the
conversion of the process n;aterials into air contaminants;
and (b) is not an air pollution abatement operation.
1.20. ''A Duplicate Source Operation'' - Shall mean any combina-
tion of tv;o or more individual source operations of any size
that have the same nomenclature, either form.erly adopted and/
or comir.only sanctioned by usage such as but not limited to
two or miore rotary driers, basic oxygen furnaces, or electric
arc furnaces contained in the same plant.
1.21. "Source Operation Type" -shall mean' a categorization
established as follov7s :
(a) Type 'a' - Shall mean any manufacturing process
sourc.:, operation in which materials of any origin undergo
physical changes and/or calcination except as noted in
Type 'c' below.
332
PROPOSED REGULATION
(b) Type 'b' - Shall mean any metallurgical manufac-
turing process source operation.
(c) Type 'c' - Shall mean any existing wet cement
manufacturing process source operation which is used for
the primary purpose of calcination.
(d) Type 'd' - Shall mean any manufacturing process
source operation in which materials of any origin undergo
a chemical change (except calcination) .
Where the nature of any process or operation or the
design of any equipment is such as to permit more than one
interpretation of source operation type, the interpretation
of the Commission shall apply.
Other words and phrases used in this Regulation, unless
otherwise indicated, shall have the meaning ascribed to them
in Section Two of Chapter Sixteen, Article Twenty of the Code
of West Virginia, as amended.
Section 2. Emission of Smoke Prohibited and Standards of Heasure^-
ments .
2.01. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emission
of smoke into the open air from any process source operation
which is darker in shade or appearance than that designated
as No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or the equivalent
opacity of this Ringelmann number, except as noted in Sub-
Sections 2.02, 2.03, and 2. OH.
nno
333
PROPOSED REGULATION
2.02. The provisions of Sub-Section 2.01 of this Section shall
not apply to smoke emitted from any process source operation
which is less than No. 2 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or the
equivalent opacity of this Ringelmann number for any period or
periods aggregating no more than five (5) minutes of any sixty
(60) minute period.
2.03. The provisions of Sub-Sections 2.01 and 2.02 of this
Section shall not apply to smoke emitted during the charging
or pushing operation of a by-product coke production facility
the shade or appearance of which is no darker than No. 2 on
the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or the equivalent opacity of this
Ringelmann number for a period or periods aggregating no more
than 30 seconds per charge or push.
2.0U. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit emission of
smoke into the open air from any enclosed storage structure
associated with any manufacturing process.
Section 3 . Control and Prohibition of Particulate Emissions by
Weight From Manufacturing Process Source Operations .
3.01. No person shall cause, suffer, allov; or permit particulate
matter to be vented into the open air from any type source opera-
tion or duplicate source operation, or from all air pollution
control equipment installed on any type source operation or
duplicate source operation in excess of the quantity specified
under the appropriate source operation type in the following
table:
334
PROPOSED REGULATION
. — ,
Operating Source Operation
Maximum Allowable Total S
tack
or Total Duplicate Source
Emission Rate in Pounds ?
er
Operation Process Weight
Hour For The Appropriate
Pro-
Rate in Pounds Per Hour^
cess, Weight and Source Co
Type^
sration
Type 'a'
Typt; 'b'
Type 'c'
Type 'd'2
2,500
3
3
9
0.22
5,000
5
5
13
1.39
10,000
10
10
19
1.84
20,000
16
16
26
4.00
30,000
22
22
32
6.15
40,000
28
28
36
8.31
50,000
31
31
40
10.46
100,000
33
33
54
21.24
200,000
37
37
70
21.24
300,000
40
40
80
21.24
400,000
43
45
88
21.24
500,000
47
53
94
21.24
600,000
50
62
99
21.24
700,000
50
71
99
21.24
800,000
50
79
99
21.24
900,000
50
88
99
21.24
1,800,000 and above
50
t
176
99
21.24
For a process weight between any two consecutive
process weights stated in this table, the emission
limitation shall be determined by linear interpolation.
Type 'd' source operation stack emission rates do not
apply to MINERAL ACIDS. Sec Sub-Section 3.02.
3.02. Mineral acids shall not be released from any Type 'd'
source operation oi"* duplicate source operation or frcr.i all air
pollution control equipment installed on any Type 'd' scarce
cp'^rati.cr. cr duplicate ccurcc cperation ir. cxccsc cf the quanti-
ty given in the following table:
335
PROPOSED REGULATION
Mineral Acid
Allov;able Stack Gas
Concentration in
Milligrams Per Dry
Cubic Meter at Stan-
dard Conditions from
Source Operations or
Duplicate Source Oper-
ations in Existence on
the Effective Date of
this Regulation
Allowable Stack Gas
Concentration in
Milligrams Per Dry
Cubic Meter at Stan-
dard Conditions fron:
Source Operations or
Duplicate Source Op-
erations Installed
After the Effective
Date of this Regula-
tion
Sulfuric Acid Mist
Nitric Acid Mist
and/or Vapor
riy'drochlcric' Acid ■ Mist
and/or Vapor
Phosphoric Acid Mist
and /or Vapor
70
140
420
6
35
70
210
3
3.03. Where more than one source operation or combinations
thereof, which are part of a duplicate source operation, are
vented through separate stacks, the allov;able stack emission
rates for the separate stacks shall be determined by the
follov;ing formula:
R_
R, ^3
VJhere: R is the allowable stack emission rate for the
s
separate stack venting the source operations in question
R^ is the total allowable emission rate for the
duplicate sourcv; operation
Wg is the operating process weight rate for the
source operation(s) vented through the separate stack
W^ is the total operating process weight rate for the
duplicate source cpi_ration
336
PROPOSED REGULATION
3. 04. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to the
cokinp of coal.
3.05. For a period of years, provisions of this Section
shall not apply to process source operations existing on the
effective date of this Regulation vith process weights of
Ibs/hr or more, provided that the following requirenents
are met and maintained:
(1) The actual pollutant emissions from such process
source operations do not exceed the allowable
emissions specified in Sub-Sections 3.01 and 3.02,
by more than 2 percent; and
(2) Smoke emitted into the open air from, anv such
process source operation is not as dark or
darker in shade or appearance than that designated
as No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or the
equivalent opacitv of this Ringelnann num,ber.
3.06 Any stack serving anv process source operation or air
pollution control equipment on any process source operation
shall contain flow straightening devices or a vertical run
oT'suf f icient length to establish flow patterns consistent
V7ith acceptable stack sampling procedures.
3.07. Potential Hazardous Material Fm.issions
Persons responsible for manufacturing process source
operations from which hazardous particulate material may
be ep-iitted such as but not limited to lead, arsenic,
beryllium, and other such materials shall give the utmost
337
PROPOSED P.EGUL^.TION
care and consideration to the potential harmful effects of
the emissions resulting from such activities. Evaluations
of these facilities as to adequacy, efficiencv and emission
Dotential vill be made on an individual hasis by the Commis-
sion working in conjunction vith other aupropriate govern-
mental agencies.
Section U. Control of Fugitive Dust .
4.01. No person shall cause, suffer, allov; or permit any
manufacturing process to ooerate that is not equipped with
a fugitive dust control system. This system, shall be
operated and maintained in such a manner as to minimize the
emission of fugitive dust.
4.02. The owner or operator of a Dlant shall maintain dust
control of the plant promises and plant owned, leased, or
controlled access roads by naving, oil treatment, or other
suitable m.easures. Good ©Derating practices shall be observed
in relation to stockpiling and general maintenance to prevent
dust generation and atmoscheric entrainm.ent .
Section 5. Registration
5.01. V/ithin thirty (30) days after the effective date of
this Regulation all persons owning and/or operating existing
manufacturing process source operations shall have registered
such source operations with the Commission. The information
required for registration shall be determined by the Director,
and shall be provided in the m.anner specified by the Director.
338
PROPOSED REGULATION
5.02. The ov/ner and/or operator of ranuf acturing process
source operations that are under construction or on which
construction is initiated within thirty (30) days after
the effective date of this Peculation shall register such
process sources within this thirty (30) day oeriod.
5.03. After the owner and/or o-oerator shall register
new process source operations with the Director at least
thirty (30) days prior to construction.
5.04. Persons owning and/or operating registered manufacturing
process source operations w'^^ich are to be modified by changes
which could significantly affect the emission characteristics
of the source operations shall register with the Dit^ector
those proposed changes not less than thirty (30) davs before
such changes are made.
Section 6. Reports and Testing.
6.01. At such reasonable times as the Director may designate,
the operator of any manufacturing process source operation
may be required to conduct or have conducted stack tests to
determine tlie dust loading in exhaust rases when the Director
has reason to believe that the stack emission limitation(s)
is/are being violated. Such tests shall bo conducted in
such manner as the Director may specify and be filed on
forms and in a m.anner acceptable to the Director. The
Director, or his duly authorized representative, may at his
option witness or conduct such stack tests. Should tne
Director exercise his option to conduct such tests, the
339
PROPOSED REGULATION
operator vrill provide all the necessary samDlin.f; connect:.ons
and sarrpling ports to be located in such manner as the Direc-
tor may require, power fer test equipment, and the required
safety equipment such as scaffolding, railings, and ladders
to ci^mply v.'ith generally accepted pood safety practices.
6.02. The Director, or his duly authorized representative, may
conduct such other tests as he m.ay deem, necessary to evaluate
air pollution emissions other than those noted in Sections 2
and 3.
Section 7. Variance .
7.01. In the event that process equipm.ent or operations in
existence prior to the adoption of this Regulation do r.ot
meet the em.ission limitations, an acceptable program shall
bo developed and offered to the Conm.ission by the person
responsible for the installation. This pro.eram shall be
submitted upon the request of and within such tim.e as shall
be fixed by the Conm.ission. Once this program has been
approved by the Commission, the ovner, and/or operator of
such installation shall not be in violation of this Rcrulation
so long as the approved or am.ended program is observed.
7.02. Due to unavoidable malfunction of equipment, emissions
exceeding those pi-'ovided for in this Regulation m.ay be per-
mitted by the Commission for periods not to exceed in days
..^-« ^^^^^r-^ 3pi^i -1* r^p^-^ ri-n to thr PnT^m i q R T on . Fuch aP'.'l3Ca-
tion shall be made within 2U hours of the malfunction. Tn
340
PROPOSFD REGUI^.TION
cases of major equinment failure, additional time periods may
be granted by the Commission provided a corrective program
has been submitted by the owner or operator and aonroved by
the Comm.ission.
Section 8. Exemptions .
8.01. Provisions of this Regulation shall not apply to parti-
culate emissions regulated by Regulations II, III, V, and 'VI, '
or to internal combustion engines, aircraft, and air entrained
particulate matter from public or private carriers.
Section 9. Fffoctive Date
Regulation VII shall become effective .
341
Senator Eagleton. Senator Randolph's third question :
You are a member of the Manpower Development Advisory Com-
mittee of the National Air Pollution Control Administration.
You have stated that there is a need for specialists at all levels, tech-
nicians, professional, and research expert.
You have also stated that all manpower studies to date underestimate
this need.
Please supply the committee with an evaluation of the specific man-
power needs to implement the air quality programs at a Federal, State,
and local level.
Mr. LiNSKY. I will do my best. It will be to some extent a para-
phrase of a manjwwer study which is being completed by the Federal
Government.
I will supply additional information as it has come to me.
Senator Eaoleton. I will add onto that question, if it is possible,
tliat we should be supplied with not only what the manpower needs or
shortages are, but also any recommendations you might have as to how
those needs or shortages could be corrected.
Mr. LixsKY. Right.
Senator Eagleton. Finally, and this is in the nature of policy and
I won't try to pin you down to any one particular cause or any one
particular bill, but generally what value, if any, do you see in having
public participation in this pollution process, whether it be establish-
ing standards, setting hearings, limitation plan hearings, criteria?
Do you view with dismay or with encouragement the participation of
the public at these various levels of decision ?
Mr. LiNSKY. I guess I can sum it up by saying thank God, at last.
Senator Eagleton. Would you please make it abundantly clear for
the printed record.
(The information subsequently furnished follows:)
Manpowe^k Questions Answered
At present, it is estimated that about 20,000 man-years are being employed in
major industries with air pollution troubles.
Federal, state and local positions for control agencies are estimated to be
about 4.000 at present.
This 5 to 1 ratio is about the ratio one would expect to be continued when the
public agencies double or triple their staffs to 8,000, 10.000. or 12,000. The indus-
try manpower, directly employed and also those working for consultants will
probably increa.se to 40,000, .50,000, or 60,000 man years to do the actual control
and corrective work that is reviewed and spurred by the control agencies.
On-the-job or after-hours training of people hired for such work will fill some
unknown percentage of these needs— perhaps 30% overall. These people as well
as their "trainers" and the rest of the people who are needed will be educated
and trained before they start on their specialty jobs.
Technicians can be trained in two (2) year community colleges and in com-
mercial trade schools, such as those who turn out many electronics technicians.
Others will need special courses during their regular four (4) year college
courses with summer school special courses to accelerate the manpower supply
work.
Still others, including the true practicing professionals, the teachers and pro-
fessors, and the research si)ecialists who will help uncover new knowledge to do
more, easier, must receive graduate training with financial support.
The present system of direct Federal support training can be enlarged. In
addition, a "pool" of trained manpower can be arranged for, as it has been in the
past for air pollution control and other program.s. The Federal government can
take the initiative of directly employing newly trained people and placing them
with public control agencies until the State or local agency can work out its
342 |l
personnel procedures, especially the merit civil service procedures that are estab-
lished, properly, to assure that only fully qualified persons are employed in career
specialist positions.
Mr. LiNSKY. For the printed record, I fully support the heaviest
participation and, therefore, learnintr and knowledge by nonprofes-
sionals in the decision-setting process lor air pollution control.
Senator Eagleton. And would that include even participation of the
public in .the enforcement mechanism ?
Mr. LiNSKY. Yes: and let me elaborate, if I may. The public has
always participated in the enforcement, both at official and at unofficial
needle levels.
I will illustrate that by saying there tend to be three reasons why
you don't get a complaint in an official control agency.
One is that everything is fine, there is no need for a complaint.
Second, a feeling of helplessness, "Wliy fight city hall ? Why tell
him ? There will be nothing done anyway."
And the third, "There is no need to tell him. He is doing extremely
well and I can help him by applying some direct pressure and grape-
vine support."
The citizen activity was illustrated in Los Angeles when they passed
their ban on open burning in backyard incinerators at homes. This
was in 1957. The agency had planned and had thought and had hired
a lot of inspectors and supervisors to do that extra policing.
In the view of some of us professionals, they were not going to need
these people. In fact, they would be able to reduce their existing staff
because the citizens would i^olice each other in an informal, across-
the-fence, needling basis. Once having put their own stake in the ^ame,
as having stopped something by having their little backyard incinera-
tor sitting out as a flower pot, they were now in a position to say,
"How about Joe? Let's clean him up, too. How is he getting away
with it?"
They served as volunteer reporters and enforcers.
Senator Eagleton. Thank you very much, Professor.
The "Lynch Linsky" picture will be made part of the record.
(The following photograph, taken by Joe Rosenthal, March 6, 1958,
appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle:)
343
Senator Eagletox. That concludes this morning's hearings of the
subcommittee.
There will be hearings tomorrow on the same subject matter com-
mencing at 9 :30 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 11 :10 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvon.'
at 9 :30 a.m., Thursday, Marcli 19, 1970.)
[Appendix to Part 1 follows]
APPENDIX— Part 1
The materials which follow are answers supplied by the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare to questions supplied by
the subcommittee through Chairman Muskie. (See p. 193 for
reference.)
AIR QUALITY CRITERIA
Question 1. Since enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967, air
quality cnteria have been issued for particulate matter, sulfur oxides,
hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants, and carbon monoxide. What
factors have contributed to the delay in issuing other air quality
critena and what are the priorities and time schedules for issuance
of additional criteria?
Answer. The National Air Pollution Control Administration's
schedule for the issuance of air quality criteria is based on a num-
ber of factors, including the relative magnitude and extent of emis-
sions of the various air pollutants, the availability of methods of
measuring emissions and ambient air levels, and the adequacy of ex-
isting scientific data on health and welfare effects. Thus, the air qual-
ity criteria documents already issued cover five pollutants which ac-
count for a major share of community air pollution problems and
which have been the subjects of extensive research over a period of
several years. The following schedule reflects current planning for
the issuance of additional air quality criteria documents :
Pollutants : Year
Fluorides, lead, nitrogen oxides, and polynuelear organics 1971
Asbestos, beryllium, chlorine gas, hydrogen chloride, and odors 1972
Arsenic, cadmium, copper, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc 1973
Barium, boron, chromium, mercury, and selenium 1974
Pesticides and radioactive substances 1975
Air quality criteria for nitrogen oxides originally had been sched-
uled for issuance in 1970 ; issuance was postponed for 1 year because
of the need for additional data on the health effects of nitrogen oxides
and on the quantitative relationship between nitrogen oxides and
photocliemical oxidants in the ambient air. This postponement has
been the only significant departure from earlier scheduling of the
issuance of air quality criteria documents.
Question 2. Please descrihe the m^ganization and membership of
the ad- hoc committees which have participated in the develojmient of
air quality criteria.
Ansioer. There has been substantial participation in the develop-
ment of air quality criteria by non-Government scientists as well as
by Government scientists from agencies other than the National Air
Pollution Control Administration. The National Air Quality Criteria
Advisory Committee participates on a continuing basis in the devel-
opment of air quality criteria documents. A great many non-Govern-
ment experts who are not members of the Advisory Committee also
(345)
346
participate as contributors to, and reviewers of, specific portions of
criteria documents; ^-enerally, they participate as individual con-
sultants rather than as members of committees. In addition, organi-
zations such as the State of California Department of Public Health
have been involved in air quality criteria development under contract
with the National Air Pollution Control Admini.stration. A complete
list of Advisory Committee members, Federal agency re])resentatives,
and non-Government scientists who have participated in this work
appears in eacli air quality criteria document.
Question 3. Please indicate the annual expenditures on air quality
arttena related research since enactment of the Clean Air Act of
1963 in the following areas :
Nitrogen dioxide.
Nitrogen dioxide and ozone.
Oxidants.
Particulate matter.
Carbon monoxide.
Behavioral toxicology.
Epidemiologic studie.s.
Vegetation effects.
Effects on materials.
Socioeconomic effects.
Otlier.
Ansioer. The initial response to this question contained data for
the National Air Pollution Control Administration's in-house and
contract research on the effects of various types and combinations
of air pollutants. The following tables provide corresponding infor-
mation on NAPCA's research grants program.
EXPENDITURES FOR AIR QUALITY CRITERIA RELATED RESEARCH NAPCA RESEARCH GRANTS
Pollutants
Type of research Particu- Other In com-
lates SOx CO NOx Oxidants pollutants' binatlon Total
Fiscal Year 1965
Behavioral toxicology $51,775 $51,775
Other toxicology $46,599 $19,141 _ 13,104 78,844
Epidemiology 366,605 366,605
Clinical 94,468 213,435 $30,556 $30,316 $22,304 257,219 648,298
Vegetation 40,646 108,392 91,902 85,458 263,470 589,868
Materials.
Socioeconomic . ..
118,017 .
118,017
Total
181,713
340, 968
30, 556
122,218
107,762
1,070,190 .
1,583,407
Fiscal Year 1970
Behavioral toxicology
Other toxicology
75,787
22, 558
98, 345
Epidemiology
86,412
168,861 .
490, 023
$27, 099
40,392"
31,019
113,511
Clinical
1,831
109, 300
220,955 .
i;555 .
51,981
261, 546
86,319
49,585
593,519
Vegetation...
35,134
922,408
Materials
Socioeconomic
32, 574
Total.. . 112,752 331,810 51,981 347,865 72,143 745,296 98,510 1,760,357
FISCAL YEAR 1969 ~
Behavioral toxicology 8,706 ..... 384 9,090
Other toxicology 70,219 . 37,154 36,913 144,286
Epidemiology . . 77,055 77,055
Clinical 92,122 102,906 39,069 374,569 176,434 785,100
Vegetation 29,293 96,060 72,296 118,193 431,377 68,543 815,762
Materials.. 11,719 . . 20,640 25,399 57,758
Socioeconomic 92,169 92,169
Total _ 200,340 210,685 39,069 446,865 155,347 834,972 93,942 1,981,220
347
EXPENDITURES FOR AIR QUALITY CRITERIA RELATED RESEARCH NAPCA RESEARCH GRANTS-Continued
Type of research
Particu-
lates
SOx
CO
NOx
Oxidants
Other
pollutants I
Pollutants
in com-
bination
Total
FISCAL YEAR 1968
Behavioral toxicology
$40,892 .
12,500
113,731 .
117,055 .
482, 567
26, 160
19, 509
$40 892
Other toxicology
...$108,791
$19,254
140,545
Epidemiology...
113,731
Clinical
... 111,157
$124,942
101,226
21,206
$51,716 $312,081
149,717
716 951
Vegetation..
Materials
... 45,081
$150, 846
19, 339
19, 509
54,410
17,906
948, 946
121,115
Socioeconomic
37,415
Total
... 265,029
247, 374
51,716
461, 798
170,185
812,414
111,079
2,119,595
FISCAL YEAR 1967
Behavioral toxicology
60,481 .
17,531
239,295 .
177,337
479,706 .
26, 160
69,230
60,481
Other toxicology.
Epidemiology
... 58,154
18. 664
94, 349
239, 295
Clinical
118,280
203, 481
147,744 .
22,455 .
6,052
212,427
108,961
10,000
727,577
Vegetation
... 36,158
129, 904
13, 928
902, 473
Materials
10, 080
16,275
72,623
Socioeconomic. .. , .
85, 405
Total
... 212,592
373, 680
6,052
321,388
143, 832
1, 069, 740
55,019
2, 182, 303
FISCAL YEAR 1966
Behavioral toxicology.
53,556 .
8,560 .
132, 000 .
223,680 .
305,504 .
34,560 .
25,689 .
53, 556
Other toxicology
... 48,790
24, 490
81,840
Epidemiology
132, 000
Clinical
182, 884
226, 346
37,801
45, 207
29, 746
95, 456
18,834
97,341
14, 405
726, 697
Vegetation
Materials
... 31,329
567, 431
48, 965
Socioeconomic
37,560
63, 249
Total
... 263,003
326, 197
45, 207
125, 202
130, 580
783,549 .
1,673,738
1 Expenditures for projects wfhich involved studies of the effects of more than 1 pollutant but not their combined effects
are included under other pollutants.
Question 4- Please justify the reported $3 million reduction for fiscal
1971 in research on health and economic effects of air pollution.
Answer. No such reduction is contemplated. The following figures
show amounts budgeted for these activities in fiscal 1970 and 1971:
1970
1971
Division of Health Effects Research
$3,977,000
3,977,000
Division of Economic Effects Research
2,082,000
2, 085, 000
Question 5. What specific steps have been taken by the National Air
Pollution Control Administixition to coordinate health effects re-
search loith the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences?
Answer. The National Air Pollution Control Administration
(XAPCA) has maintained active liaison with the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) ever since the latter
organization was created. NAPCA and NIEHS annually exchange
project-planning information in order to eliminate duplication of
effort. All air quality criteria documents and NAPCA research posi-
tion papers are sent to NIEHS for review. NAPCA*s Office of Re-
search Grants maintains contact with NIEHS relative to the review
of research grant applications. In June 1969, when NIEHS held a
planning conference in Corvallis, Oreg., NAPCA was represented by
43-166 O — TO-^t. 1 23
348
the Directxn- of Biirenn of Criteria and Standards and the Director
of the Division of Health Effects Research. NAPCA is reg^ilarly rep-
resented by the Director of the Bureau of Criteria and Standards at
meetings of the Environmental Health Sciences Advisory Commit-
tee, the primary advisory group for NIEHS. In December 1969,
NAPCA and NIEHS held a joint information exchange meeting m
order to reinforce coordination of research of mutual interest to the
two organizations. In addition, NAPCA has submitted to NIEHS a
list of projects concerning the health effects of air pollution which
NAPCA is unable to initiate at this time but which would be appro-
priate to the mission of NIEHS. Finally, on the working level, there
is continuing informal coordination between NAPCA and NIEHS
scientists concerning research of mutual interests.
Question 6. What research hm been initiated to obtain information
on the long-term effects of contaminants and combinations of con-
taminants?
Answer. NAPCA's health effects research program includes many
projects designed to identify the effects of long-term exposure to low
levels of air pollutants and combinations of pollutants. These projects
include both laboratory and field studies.
The following is a list of current field studies ; it should be noted
that field studies generally reflect the effects of combinations of pol-
lutants, because, even though one pollutant may predominate m the
study area, others will be present.
1. The relationship between nitrogen oxides and acute and chronic
respiratory disease.
2. The presence of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds m human
plasma and ambient air in two cities.
3. The relationship between air pollution in the area of residence
of persons in Chicago and chronic respiratory disease.
4. The relationship between trace metals in hair, blood, and urme
among military recmits categorized by air pollution levels at residence
prior to recruitment.
5. Health effects of exposure to lead, arsenic, and cadmium.
6. Blood pressure, cholesterol, and cadmium relationships in fami-
lies highly exposed to cadmium.
7. Lead and mercury threshold studies for hematological effects.
8. Trace metal patterns and polychlorinated bi])henyl residues m
hair, blood, urine, bone, and soft tissue, as related to chronic obstruc-
tive lung disease, lung cancer, stroke, and myocardial infarction.
9. Lead exposure study in seven cities to determine if there has been
an increase in the body burden of lead since the three-city study was
completed in 1962.
10. Trace metals in the sputum in patients with chronic respiratory
disease.
11. The relationship between occupation and residence histories of
lung cancer decedents to determine if a relationship exists with air
pollution.
12. Health effects surveillance studies.
Laboratory studies include a study of tlie effects of chronic exposure
to raw or irradiated automobile exhaust, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides,
or combinations of these materials: relationship of nitrogen oxides to
349
occurrence of emphysema in primates ; effect of long-term exposure to
sulfur dioxide and particulate matter in varying concentrations on
aninijil pulmonary function : the inununological and biochemical char-
acterization of lung surfactant with regard to chronic respiratory
disease and air pollution; and a review of research data relating
chronic, low-level carbon monoxide exix)sure to altered cellular metab-
olism and resultant decrements in human physical and behavioral
performance.
Question 7. What research is NAPCA conducting or supporting on
carcinogenic and mutagenic e/ffecfs of contaminants and comh'nmtlons
of contaminants?
I. INTRODUCTION
Answer. — It would appear from epidemiological data that there is
a strong possibility that air pollutants are contributing to the inci-
dence of cancer, notably of the bronchial-pulmonary variety.
The preponderance of lung cancer in urban, as compared to rural,
areas is well documented; furthermore, it is equally well known that a
number of specific carcinogens and many substances capable of enhanc-
ing carcinogenic effects are present in urban air at many times their
concentrations in rural air.
Accordingly, it is appropriate that biological research be conducted,
as part of NAPCA's air quality criteria development program, to
determine the role that air pollutants may be playing in the occurrence
of cancer of the lung and related anatomical regions. The task of
determining the contributions of air pollutants as direct inducers,
co-factors, or passive carriers requires studes of quantitative inhala-
tion models in whole animals and other biological systems. Some
of the possibilities by which air pollutants might induce cancer are
listed below.
1. Specific carcinogenic effect of ])olycyclic hydrocarbons.
2. Cocarcinogenic effect of irritant <rases, such as sulfur dioxide,
ozone, et cetera, in conjunction with polycyclic hydrocarbons or other
carcinogens.
3. Enhancing effect of particulate material, such as fly ash, on which
carcinoa:ens from the air or other sources might be absorbed. Such
particulate material consists of carbon, silica, iron. etc.
4. Specific biolosfical effects on anticarcinogenic induced enzyme
systems produced through organo complexes from trace metals; e.g.,
effect of nickel on benzopvrene hydroxylase.
5. Specific additive effect of a given carcinogen from the air super-
imposed on similar carcinogen from industrial or personal source; e.g..
RAP (benz-a-pyrene) from cigarette smoke and BAP from air.
6. Specific carcinogen from air reacting Avith carrier from other
source; e.g., BAP from community air pollution reacting with asbestos
from an industrial source.
7. Interaction of carcinogenic air pollutants with tumor-inducing
viruses.
II. CFRREXT STATT'S OF RESEARCH
.1. General
Considerable information is already on hand from the work of
Sawicki and others on the chemistry of hydrocarbon carcinogens con-
350
tained in polluted air and Hueper and others on biological evaluation
of hydrocarbons through skin painting and percutaneous application
to adult mice with whole organic extract and various subfractions.
Epstein's work with paramecia, supported by NAPCA, has shown
that presumptively carcinogenic activity resides in a number of speci-
fic fractions of air extract and that crude organic fractions from vari-
ous cities differ markedly in effect. It is of interest that where mate-
rial from the same cities Avas used, Epstein, through subcutaneous in-
jection of newborn mice, and Hueper et al. through percutaneous and
subcutaneous inoculation of adult mice, obtained comparable quan-
titative results. Studies currently are being conducted to evaluate the
related potency of various hydrocarbon subfractions in neonatal mice.
The influence of particulate matter in conjunction with hydrocar-
bon carcinogens, as demonstrated by Pylev for a combination of car-
bon. DMBA (dimethylbenzanthracene), and BAP, and by Saffiotti
et al. for a combination of hematite and BAP, has been of great in-
terest. The latter has been an extremely successful model and would
appear to hold the greatest promise of any developed so far for
adaptability to an inhalation system.
The enhancing effect of irritant gases recently has been demon-
strated by the work of Laskin et al. with respect to sulfur dioxide and
BAP inhalation.
Preliminary work reported by Dixon et al. suggests that trace metals
alter the activity of benzopyrene hydroxylase enzyme, and Gross has
shown that nickel apparently potentiates the activity of asbestos in
eliciting lung tumors in animals. Also, retrospective epidemiologic
data stronffly support the view that an interaction occurs between fib-
ers and tobacco smoke, with smokers having 82 times the risk of non-
smokers.
Currently, NAPCA scientists are carrying on research in which
massive amounts of benzene soluble extracts of particulate matter
are being accumulated for direct operations in biologic carcinoge-
nicity studies. This material is now being incorporated with partic-
ulate material of the proper size for airway deposition of aerosols
in inhalation studies. Direct tracheal instillation of this and other
particulate material, in the manner of SafRotti and Shubik, will com-
mence shortly for the purpose of obtaining detailed background in-
formation before inhalation work is attempted. This material also
will be tested in conjunction with BAP and certain other pure chem-
ical material likely to be biologically active in this system, that is,
trace metals. Studies will be carried out on such matters as toxicity
to the macrophage, alteration of lysozomal enzyme activity, elicita-
tion of hyperplasia, metaplasia, or malignant transformation in in
vitro systems.
In preliminary work in intact animals, particulate material con-
taining hydrocarbon carcinogens will be intratracheally instilled into
hamsters and inoculated into other a])propriate biological systems.
The animals will be examined for evidence of precancerous changes
as well as for eventual development of definitive tumors.
In the meantime, work will be underway on the physical aspects
of aerosol production and characterization and on basic animal ex-
l)osure for the purpose of studying deposition, clearance, and so forth
351
before exposure of animals to carcinogenic agents by ventilation is
begun.
After preliminary work is completed, aerosol exposure to actual
carcinogens will commence.
B. Specific research
1. Contracts
{a) A contract (CPA 22-69-21) was let last year and is continuing
this year to provide realistic material for biological testing in the
direct operations portion of this program. This consists of the fol-
lowing phases:
Phase 1. Procurement of massive amounts of airborne particulate
matter and extraction of the crude organic or benzene soluble por-
tions.
Phase 2. Preparation of particles incorporating hematice, nickel,
or other metallic substances with {a) crude organic extract in suit-
able form for eventual aerosolization or other use in animals, and
( h ) benzopyrene.
Phase 3. Fractitionation and subfractionation of another portion of
the crude organic extract for specific biologic carcinogenicity test-
ing.
The first phase of this contract is now completed, and the con-
tractor is ready to supply material. Exploratory work is underway
on the second phase, and materials will be ready shortly. Phase 3
will be started soon and should be finished during the current fis-
cal vear.
(h) Now underway, under a XAPCA contract (PH 86-66-169). is
a project to determine the carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of specific
fractions of crude organic extract derived from airborne particular
matter. Specific fractions will be tested for carcinogenicity; subcutan-
eous injection of newborn mice will be used as the experimental system.
Specific fractions will be injected into pregnant niice to determine
mutagenicity by observing the occurrence of dominant lethal genes.
Examination for evidence of mutations in mold culture will also be
undertaken.
3. Direct operations
The work will consist of two phases which will proceed simultane-
ously : Program of tumorigenesis in animals and program to detect the
influence of various air pollutants on lung defensive systems against
carcinogens.
Phase 1. Cancer induction phase
This work will begin with a study of the Saffiotti and Shubik model
for the production of lung cancer in hamsters through the use of var-
ious combinations of pure chemical and pollutant material collected
from the air. The objectives of this study are :
(a) Determine if BAP may be replaced by materials collected
from the air.
(b) Determine if hematite may be replaced by airborne par-
ticulate matter.
(c) Determine if the model can be enhanced by airborne cof ac-
tors, that is, nickel.
id) Determine if airborne oraanic material may be additive to
BAP.
352
This work will require repeated intertracheal instillation of carcino-
genic and additive material into a large number of hamsters. It will
form the basis for inhalation work, which will follow.
Animals that have received carcinogens and respective controls will
be sacrificed at various times for study of pathologj^, macrophage func-
tion, RNA, DNA turnover, and so forth. The remaining animals will
be reserved and held for approximately 1 year, at which time they will
be sacrificed and subjected to detailed search for the presence of tumors
and classification of the histologic type.
Phase 2. Defensive Tnechanisms phase
This w^ork will involve studies of the behavior of known carcinogens
Avithin the lung and in vitro and the influence of various cofactors. In
vivo and in vitro studies of alveolar macrophages will be carried out to
assay their handling' of BAP by means of phagocytosis, transport, and
detoxification. The mfluence of exposure to hematite, trace metals, air-
borne particulate matter, and air pollutant gases on the ability of
macrophages to handle BAP will be determined. The in vivo portion of
this work will consist of exposure and study of hamsters.
Search for alteration of number, phagocytic ability, lysosomal en-
zyme activity, and so forth, of alveolar macrophages will be pursued
by washout methods. The retention and movement of BAP, as influ-
enced by hematite, nickel, and other cofactors, will be studied by radio-
label BAP by means of pulmonary lavage, whole lung studies, and
so forth. Efforts will be made to identify methods of studying how
suppression of macrophage formation by colchicine or immune reac-
tion affects the handling of hydrocarbon carcinogens. The influence of
exposure of hamsters to pollutant gases will be studied through the
use of the above system. In vitro studies employing surviving cultures
of rabbit macrophages in giant roller tubes will be carried out. Induc-
tion of benzopyrene hydroxylase and its alteration by various co-
factors, notably nickel, will be studied: Exposure of the surviving
tissue culture cells to various air pollutant gases to determine the
influence of these factors on enzyme induction will also be carried out
in roller tubes.
3. C oUdboratire program
The Ministry of the Interior, Federal Republic of Germany, has
asked the T'nited States to collaborate in developing a German cancer
research program under the auspices of the pending United States-
German natural resources program.
In addition, there is a cooperative Public Law 480 project (No. 05-
301-3) with the State Institute of Hygiene, Department of Communal
Hygiene, Poland, entitled "Estimation and efl^ects of carcinogenic ma-
terial in airborne particulate matter collected in 10 selected cities in
Poland.*"
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
Question 1. What specific contracts and grants were awarded under
section 104- for the following categories?
Control of sulfur oxides pollution:
Removal of sulfur from coal.
Removal of sulfur from fuel oil.
Removal of sulfur from flue gas.
New process development.
Control of nitrogen oxides pollution.
Control of particulate pollution.
('Ontrol of pollution, from, specific industries.
Control of pollution from solid waste disposal.
Control device improvement studies.
Control of automotive emissions.
Alternatives to tlie internal cornbustion engine.
Answer. Attached is a list of contracts and interagency transfers
under section lO-t through June 30, 1969. No grants were awarded
under section 104 during this period.
With regard to both this question and the next one, it should be
noted that NAPCA is not supporting research and development relat-
ing to removal of sulfur from fuel oil, since adequate technology for
this purpose already exists. It should also be noted that research and
development activities relating to control of air pollution from solid
waste disposal are conducted primarily under the Solid Waste Disposal
Act rather than under the Clean Air Act.
NAPCA CONTRACTS UNDER SEC. 104 (THROUGH JUNE 30, 1969)
I. CONTROL OF SULFUR OXIDE POLLUTION
Name of firm Title of project Amount
A. REMOVAL OF SULFUR PROM COAL
Battelle Memorial I nstitute Fuel availability-cost model study J143, 280
Bituminous Coal Research Evaluation of coal cleaning methods and techniques for re- 47,333
moval of pyrific sulfur from fine size coal.
General Technologies Corp Solvent-refined coal cost study 38,272
University of Illinois Sampling and evaluation of coal mines in Illinois by the III!- 73,595
nois Geological Survey.
Interagency transfers:
Bureau of Mines Removal of pyritefrom coal by tabling - 46,000
Do Removal of pyritefrom coal in a Humphrey Spiral — .- 50,000
Do - Occurrence and removal of pyritic sulfur from American coals. 125,000
Do.. Availability of low-sulfur coals -- 340,000
B. REMOVAL OF SULFUR FROM FUEL OIL
(353)
354
NAPCA CONTRACTS UNDER SEC. 104 (THROUGH JUNE 30, 1969)— Continued
Name of firm Title of project Amount
$184,765
231,000
257, 900
128,080
891,145
116,125
147.121
484, 248
8,676
81,519
67,200
23, 000
58, 888
69, 320
C. REIVIOVAL OF SULFUR FROM FLUE GAS
Aerojet-General Applicability of aqueous solutions for the development of new
processes for removing sulfur dioxide from flue gases.
Allied Chemical -. - Applicability of reduction to sulfur techniques to the develop-
ment of new processes for removing sulfur dioxide from
flue gases.
Babcock & Wilcox - Aqueousslurry scrubbing of sulfur dioxide from flue gases —
Battelle Memorial Institute. - . Study of reaction kinetics of limestone-dolomite with sulfur
dioxide in a dispersed solid contactor.
Bechtel Corp - Prototype study of limestone scrubbers for SO2 dust removal
systems.
Ford Motor Corp Applicability of inorganic solids other than oxides to the de-
velopment of new processes for removing SO from flue
gases.
Mine safety Applicability of inorganic liquids to the development of new
processes for removing sulfur dioxide from flue gases.
North American Rockwell Corp Development of molten carbonate process for removal of
sulfur dioxide from powerplant stack gases.
Peabody Coal.. Moving grate furnace study of limestone for control of sulfur
oxides.
Radian Corp Theoretical description of the limestone injection-wet scrub-
bing process for SO; removal.
Research-Cottrell, Inc Particulates collection study-Tennessee Valley Authority dry
limestone tests.
Stone & Webster -- Development of the Stone & Webster ionics sulfur dioxide
removal and recovery process.
TRW Corp Applicability of organic solids to the development of new
techniques for removing oxides of sulfur from flue gases.
University of Illinois - Study of petrographic and mineralogical characteristics of
carbonate rocks related to sulfur oxide sorption in flue
gases.
West Virginia University Experimental investigation of the penetration and dispersion 31,033
phenomena in the limestone injection method.
Interagency Transfers: . , ,. _, , ^ j ^u ■ mn nnn
Tennessee Valley Authority Effect of physical properties of limestone, dolomite, and their 100,000
derivatives on the kinetics of reaction with SO;.
Do Unit full-scale evaluation-dry limestone injection process for 700,000
SO" removal from powerplant stack gases.
Do Conceptualdesign and cost study of sulfur oxide removal from 225,000
powerplant stack gas. ,^„ „„„
Do --- Pilot plant study of ammonia scrubbing of powerplant stack 138,000
gases.
Bureau of Mines Evaluation of processes for removal of 80= from flue gas '"'5^9
Do Regenerative kinetics of alkalized alumina 40,000
Do._ - - Mechanisms and kinetics of alkalized alumina process for SO2 30,000
removal.
Do Study of sorption of SO2 from smelter gases by alkalized 100,000
alumina.
Do -. . Preparation of an improved catalyst for alkalized alumina 35,000
Do Process development for sulfur dioxide removal from flue gas. 300, 000
Do_ Evaluation of metal oxides as sorbents for SO2 in powerplant 40, 000
flue gases.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Studies and causes of comminution of alkalized alumina 29,000
D. NEW PROCESS DEVELOPMENT
Aerojet General Systems evaluation of refuse as a low sulfur fuel ^'^c'Vm
Chemical Construction High sulfur combuster study .. ----- 21°' °0J
United Aircraft Technological and economic feasibility study of advanced 292, bb4
power cycles and methods of producing nonpolluting duels.
Interagency transfers: ,„ ... . ,,, „..
Argonne National Laboratories Reduction of atmospheric pollution by application of fluidized /!b/,uuu
bed combustion.
Office of Coal Research Pope, Evans, Characterization and control of air pollutants from an i ndus- 62,500
Robbins. trial fluidized-bed combustion unit.
E. OTHER
General technology Infrared spectroscopic study of gas solid interactions -?|'nnc
Walden Research Systematic study of air pollution from fossil-fuel combustion 241,906
equipment.
Interagency transfers: icn nnn
Brooknaven National Laboratory Atmospheric sulfur pollutions on'nnn
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Elevated plume study ^ o nnn
Tennessee Valley Authority White pine ramets tor large power plants emissions study r,?,'nnn
Tennessee Valley Authority Full-scale field study of inversion break-up at large power- 30,ouu
plants.
355
NAPCA CONTRACTS UNDER SEC. 104 (THROUGH JUNE 30, 1969)-Conlinued
II. CONTROL OF NITROGEN OXIDES POLLUTION
Name of firm
Title of project
Amount
Esso Research & Eneineerine .
Systems study of nitrogen oxides control methods for station-
$28, 584
ary sources.
III.
CONTROL OF PARTICULATE POLLUTION
Midwest Research Institute.. Particulate pollutant system study $249,500
Southern Research Electrostatic precipitator systems study 289, 277
Walter C. McCrone... Standard manual methods for particulate measurements for 203,000
fossil-fuel combustion sources.
IV. CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES
Batelle Memorial Institute Systems analysis study of the integrated iron and steel $75,790
industry.
Chemical Construction Engineering analysis of emissions control technology for sul- 69,660
furic acid manufacturing process.
A. T. Kearney, Co .- System analysis of emissions and emissions control in the iron 264,356
foundry industry.
A. C. McKee. Systems analysis study of the smelting Industry. 12, 100
Stanford Research I nstifute Pnotochemlcai reactivities of organic solvents 94, 760
Stanford Research Institute... Feasibility study of new S0= control process applied to smelter 35,000
and other low emission sources.
V. CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
VI. CONTROL DEVICE IMPROVEMENT STUDIES
BeIco Pollution Control Pulsed power supply for electrostatic precipitators $20, 255
Interagency transfers: Atomic Energy Com- Technology to control air pollution from stationary sources 120,000
mission: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
VII. CONTROL OF AUTOMOTIVE EMISSIONS
Automotive Research Association Engine deterioration and exhaust emissions ^^^'^l
The Marquardt Co Continuous flow combustion systems study 96,683
The Dow Chemical Co Effects of fuel additives on characteristics of emissions in 104,000
auto exhaust.
Esso Research and Engineering Co... Control of NOx in auto exhaust l°>]°^
General Research Corp.... Model study of characteristics of photochemical reaction in 56,485
Los Angeles basin.
International Telephone & Telegraph Re- Development of particulate emission control techniques for 96,058
search Institute. spark ignition engines. u . .. u . j « nnn
Illinois Institute of Technology Chemical species in diesel engine exhaust and exhaust odors. ^3, ouu
Arthur D. Little, Inc Diesel odor composition and identification I'lln
Olson Laboratories, Inc Emissions from 2-cycle IC engines .t'ola
Consolidated Engineering Technology Corp... Substitute fuels (methanol) -- ,c'acc
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc Passenger car refueling losses -- ,n'nnn
Federal Aviation Administration. Visual appearance of jet aircraft smoke and test cell measure- ^U, uuu
ments. . -^.
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc Exhaust emissions from reciprocating aircraft powerplants.. °j'°5n
Stanford Research Institute Catalytic control of exhaust emissions from Otto cycle engines. ;5'^*"
Systems Development Corp 5-city survey - J.l'li,
TRW, Inc Surveillance, inspection, maintenance procedures ^45, 5J4
Interagency transfers: , , ■ » .■ c nnn
Atomic Energy Commission AEC-NAPCA cooperative study of gas-aerosol interactions.... .J.OOO
Bureau of Mines Characteristics of photochemical reactivity of vehicular emis- 165, uuo
sions
Do Composition, smoke, and odor of diesel combustion products. 160, 000
Do Interactions between fuel composition and vehicle emissions. . 139, 000
National A'eronautics and' S'pace A'dmin- Development of thermal reactors for control of hydrocarbon 300, 000
istration, and carbon monoxide in motor vehicle exhaust.
Do - Power information center support (2 years) , ?, nnn
U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command.. Analysis of exhaust emissions from diesel cycle engines...... 11, uuu
Do Technical feasibility of controlling motor vehicle emissions b7, UUU
by use of the Ford stratified charge process.
VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE
Thermo-Electron Corp Conceptual design of Rankine cycle propulsion system ^Hi'iU,
Atomic Energy Commission: Argonne Na- Status of high-energy battery developments au.uuu
tlonal Laboratory.
356
NAPCA CONTRACTS UNDER SEC. 104 (THROUGH JUNE 30, 1969)-Continued
IX. Other
Name of firm Title of project Amount
Battelle Memorial Institute Combustion research study $157,600
Ernst & Ernst,- Analytic studies in air pollution control 71,510
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research and development engineering services 105,370
Research Triangle Institute Ozone chemiluminescent study 103, 278
Thermo-Systems,.lnC-.. Development of a transducer for continuous measurement of 46,363
aerosol mass concentration of air pollution aerosols using a
quartz-crystal oscillator.
TRW, I nc Systems analysis program 390, 200
Walden Research Standard chemical methods for sampling and analysis of 198,330
gaseous pollutants from the combustion of fossil fuels.
Interagency Transfers:
Atomic Energy Commission: Argonne Chicago air pollution system model... 150,000
National Laboratory.
Bureau of Mines Pollution by chlorine in coal, and flame characteristics causing 50,000
air pollution.
Question '2. How many contracts and grants have heen awarded since
July ./, 1969, under section lOI^f For what purpose? In ivhat ainountsf
Answer. Attached is a list of contracts, interagency transfers, and
grants under section 104 since July 1, 1969. To show the purposes, the
projects are classified under the same headings used in the preceding
question. It should be emphasized that the list includes only contracts,
grants, and interagency transfers actually awarded through May 7,
1970. As of that date, many other contracts were in various stages
of development; included among them were several relating to the
development of alternatives to the internal combustion engine.
NAPCA CONTRACTS AND INTERAGENCY TRANSFERS UNDER SECTION 104 (JULY 1, 1969, THROUGH MAY 7, 1970)
Name of firm Title of project Amount
I. CONTROL OF SULFUR OXIDE POLLUTION
A. Removal of sulfer from coal:
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc An evaluation of coal cleaning methods and techniques for $40,000
removal of pyritic sulfur from fine size coal.
Harvard University ._ Computer mapping of coal reserves by sulfer level 69, 858
Interagency transfers:
Bureau of Mines Availability of low(-sulfur fuels 400,000
U.S. Air Force, Hanson Field,
Mass A system engineering study of deep-cleaned coal 140,000
Bureau of Mines Coal cleaning projects 485, 000
B. Removal of sulfur from fuel oil:
C. Removal of sulfur from flue gas:
Radian Corp A study of the limestone injection v/et scrubbing process 141,415
TRW, Inc.. Holographic determination of injected limestone distribution 84,500
in unit of the Shawnee Powerplant.
Tyco Laboratories, Inc Feasibility of oxidizing SO2 in pow/erplant flue gases to sulfuric 64,966
acid.
Interagency Transfers
Tennessee Valley Authority Full scale evaluation of the dry limestone injection process... 840,000
Do Pilot plant study of ammonia scrubbing of powerplant stack 350,000
gases.
Bureau of Mines Evaluation of metal oxides as sorbents for SO2 in powerplant 100,000
flue gases.
D. New process development:
Pope, Evans & Robbins... Characterization and control of air pollutants from a fluidized- 245, 450
bed combustion unit.
Westinghouse Electric Corp Evaluation of the fluidized-bed combustion process 344,487
Interagency Transfers
Atomic Energy Commission Argonne
National Laboratory Study of fluidized-bed combustion 33, 000
Bureau of Mines Fluidized-bed combustion as a means of reducing air 205,000
pollution.
Office of Coal Research Characterization and control of air pollutants from a fluidized- 20,500
bed combustion unit.
357
NAPCA CONTRACTS AND INTERAGENCY TRANSFERS UNDER SECTION 104 (JULY 1, 1969, THROUGH MAY 7, 1970)—
Continued
Name of firm Title of project Amount
E. Other:
Scientific Research I nstruments Sulfur behavior and sequestering of sulfur toinpounds during $164, 330
coal carbonization, gasification, and combustion.
General Technologies Corp... Infrared spectroscopic study of gas-solid interactions 36,000
Interagency transfers:
Environmental Science Services Meteorological support to the large power plant effluent study 200,000
Administration. at Indiana, Pa.
Tennessee Valley Authority Conceptual design and economic evaluation studies of SO2 225,000
control processes.
Do Full scale field study of inversion breakup at large powrer plants. 40, 000
II. CONTROL OF NITROGEN OXIDE
POLLUTION
Esso Research and Engineering Co Systems study of nitrogen oxides control methods for sta- 53,534
tionary sources.
III. CONTROL OF PARTICULATE
POLLUTION
Thermo-Systems, Inc Continuous particulate monitors for fossil fuel combustion 194,500
sources.
IV. CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM
SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES
A. T. Kearney & Co Systems analysis of emissions and emissions control in the 5,000
iron foundry industry.
Stanford Research Institute Feasibility study of new SO2 control process applied to smelter 2,408
and other low emission sources.
V. CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
VI. CONTROL DEVICE, TECHNIQUE EVAL-
UATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT STUDIES
VII. CONTROL OF AUTOMOTIVE
EMISSIONS
Optimizer Control Corp Optimizer ignition control system 23,000
North American Rockwell Corp... Development of particulate emission control techniques for 31,355
spark-ignition engines.
Southwest Research Institute Investigation of diesel powered vehicle odor and smoke 104, 024
Battelie Memorial Institute A laboratory study of the influence of fuel atomization, 79,000
vaporization, and mixing processes in pollutant emissions
from motor vehicle powerpiants.
Charles G. Roberts & Son Evaluation of Charles G. Roberts emissions control system... 14,677
Olson Laboratories, Inc Study of emissions from 2-cycle internal combustion engine.. 961
Automotive Research Assoc. Inc Study of relationship of engine deterioration to exhaust 9,791
emissions.
Systems Development Corp Conduct a survey of driving patterns in 5 cities relative to 36,480
auto air pollution.
Interagency transfers:
Commerce Technical Advisory Board Panel on automotive fuels and air pollution— Costs of elim- 13,400
inating lead from gasoline.
U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command.. Exhaust emission evaluation of a Ford combustion process 50,000
engine.
Atomic Energy Commission Argonne The fate of CO in the atmosphere 40,000
National Laboratory.
Bureau of Mines Products of combustion of distillate fuels for motive power... 185,000
Bureau of Mines Interaction between fuel compositions and engine factors 145,000
influencing exhaust emissions.
Federal Aviation Administration Reduction of nitrogren oxides emissions from aircraft 50,000
VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE INTERNAL
COMBUSTION ENGINE
Interagency transfers: Atomic Energy Com- Status of high energy battery developments 50,000
mission Argonne Nat'l Laboratory.
IX. OTHER
Travelers Research Corp A study of indoor-outdoor air pollutant relationships 12,063
Scott Research Laboratories, Inc Atmospheric reaction studies in the Los Angeles Basin....... H'^ll,
Research Triangle Institute Chemi uminescent ozone meter for continuous air monitoring 23,640
project.
Barringer Research Ltd : Test program of optical measurements of SO2 and NO2 ,•;;«
Louisiana State University.. _. A specific method for the determination of ozone in the atmos- 1,430
phere.
California Department of Health... Performance evaluation procedures for continuous atmos-
pheric analyzer - 60, Oil
Copley International Corp Studies to assess the social and economic impact of odors,
national survey of the odor problem 9. 567
Southwest Research Institute . . Development and implementation of an operational system tor
evaluating and collaboratively testing methods recom-
mended for air pollution measurements 241, 900
358
NAPCA CONTRACTS AND INTERAGENCY TRANSFERS UNDER SECTION 104 (JULY 1, 1969, THROUGH MAY 7, 1970)-
Continued
Name of firm Title of project Amount
Ernst & Ernst Analytic studies in air pollution $31,425,
Interagency transfers: . , . , . , ,
Characteristics and photochemical reactivity of fuel compo-
Bureau of IVIines -- nents and combustion products 180,000
Study of the feasibility of the use of permeation tubes for gas
National Bureau of Standards.. analyses standards 12,000
Environmental Science Services Admin-
jstration Spectroscopic characteristics of pollution gases 60,000
Development of bioassay methods to measure effects of air
Agricultural Research Service. pollution on vegetation ^^P'^^^
Forest Service Air pollution effects on forest trees of the eastern United States. 25, 000
'NAPCA survey and demonstration grants under section 104, J'^^^V i> 1969 through
May 8, 1970
I. Control of sulfur oxide polluton :
A. Removal of sulfur from coal :
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology $40, 966
"Extent and availability of low-sulfur coal."
Utah geological and mining survey 88,500
"Extent and availability of low-sulfur coal."
Questions. A 5-year {ff^call 968-72) research and development pro-
grain tvas developed hy the Stanford, Research Institute for NAPCA.
What were: (a) the recommended total and annual expenditures for
this program; (h) the actual and estimated expenditures; and (c)
the expenditures recommended hy the National Academy of Sciences?
Answer. The 5-year plan cited in the question is for research and
development relating to the prevention and control of sulfur oxides
pollution from stationary sources. It was developed by the Stanford
Research Institute under a contract with the National Air Pollution
Control Administration and was completed in April 1968. The contrac-
tor did not make any recommendations as to expenditures ; rather, the
purpose of the contract was to assemble all available information on
Federal agencies' plans for research and development relating directly
and indirectly to the prevention and control of sulfur oxides pollu-
tion. In addition to the National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion, the agencies included in the contractor's survey were the Bureau
of Mines and Office of Coal Research of the Department of the In-
terior, Tennessee Valley Authority, Federal Power Commission, and
Environmental Science Services Administration of the Department
of Commerce.
The projected total of expenditures by Federal agencies during
fiscal 1968-72 was $392,544,000. Annual totals were as follows :
Fiscal year : Amount
1968 $26, 587, 000
1969 88, 293, 000
1970 100, 466, 000
1971 93, 634, 000
1972 83, 564, 000
359
Estimated Federal expenditures are as follows :
Fiscal year : Amount
1968 $24, 050, 000
1969 26, 100,000
1970 32, 000, 000
1971 C)
1972 (')
^ Not available.
The National Academy of Sciences (National Academy of Engi-
neering) did not recommend a level of expenditures.
AUTOMOTIVE EMISSION CONTROL
QueHtion 1. What has been the level of funding for motor vehicle pol-
lutioii control resedirh (Did flerelopmeiif and vduit are the estimated
expe)uliture>^ for -fiscal yearn 1971 to 1973 i*
Answer. The following- table shows actual obligations in fiscal 1968
and 1969 and estimated oblig-ations for fiscal 197()-78. The fijrnre
for fiscal 1970 is based on actnal appi-o])riations, while that fo7' fiscal
1971 is based on the bnd^et estimate to tlie Congress. Estimates for fis-
cal 1972 and 1973 are derived from lonjr-ranoe plannino; allocations (as
explained in response from lono-range planning allocations (as ex-
plained in response to question 2 on governmental expenditures).
Fiscal year: Amount
1!M!8 .$l.nO0, 000
l!)l») 3, 4!I0, (too
1!>70 7, 021, 000
1971 13, Hm, 000
11>72 20, .",00, 000
11>73 26, 400, 000
The above figures include estimated obligations not only for research
and development but also for the clean car incentive program (de-
scribed in response to next question) .
Quest/on '2. What Hpecvfic program efforts are being made to develop
alternatives to the intenud combustion engine^'
Answer. The National Air Pollution Control Administration has
developed a 6-year plan for Federal research and development relat-
ing to the prevention and control of motor vehicle pollution. A brief
description of the plan is attached. The following table shows esti-
mated fiscal 1970-71 funding of the National Air Pollution Control
Administration's activities i-ehiting to the development of alternatives
to the internal combustion engine. Estimated funding of the clean car
incentive program also is shown in the table; a description of this
program is attached.
Fiscal years
1970 1971
I. Research and development;
A. Rankine cycle engines:
1. First-generation prototype organic fluid reciprocating powerplant:
Phases II and III $420,000 $800,000
2. Rankine water-based reciprocating powerplant 800, 000
3. Rankine organic turbine 800, 000
4. Other, including supporting components research (Includes syn-
thesis of alternative working fluids)_ . ^ 800, 000 200, 000
B. Hybrid power systems:
1. Heat engine/flywhee 160,000 500,000
2. Heat engine/battery . .. 225,000 800,000
C. Turbine power systems (emissions and materials development research). 185, 000 700, 000
D. Supporting combustion studies.. 359,000 600,000
E. Electrical power systems (high-temperature alkali metal batteries) 250, 000 600, 000
F. Program direction and program planning studies 101,000 200,000
Total research and development 2,500,000 6,000,000
II. Clean-car incentive program 250,000 4,800,000
Total 2,750,000 10,800,000
(360)
361
Kationai> Air Pollution Control Adminkstratiox Motor
Vehicle Research and Development Plan*
The National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) has
developed, a 6-year plan (fiscal 1970-75) for Federal reseaich and
development relating to the prevention and control of motor vehicle
pollution. Included in the plan are the current and i)rojected future
motoi- vehicle research and development activities of XAPC^V and
several other Federal agencies, includinjr the Department of Trans-
portation, Defense, and the Interior, the General Services Administra-
tion, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the
Atomic Energy Commission.
Totally, Federal expenditures of $89.1 million aie contemplated;
of this sum, at least $7.8 million would be in funding by agencies other
than NAPCA.
Expenditures by agencies other than NAPCA actually may be
greater than $7.8 million, since the plan, in its curi-ent form, reflects
the Department of Transportation's projected activities only through
fiscal 1970; information on future activities has not been made avail-
able to NAPCA.
There are three majoi- elements to the plan : Research and develop-
ment relating to contiol of emissions from conventional motor vehi-
cles; development of unconventional, low-pollution motor vehicles;
and necessjiry supporting research. Following is a brief description of
each element; figures in parentheses indicate projected Federal ex-
penditures during the fiscal 1970-75 jjeriod :
1. Conreiitional motor veMdeH {$25.5 milUon). — Research and de-
velopment aimed at pioviding new and improved techniques for con-
trolling emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
and particulate mattei- (including lead) fi'oni gasoline-fueled engines;
and nitrogen oxides, smoke, and odors from diesel engines. AVork re-
lating to abatement of aire la It emissions also is included.
2. Uncoi}ve/ntio)iaJ motor vehicles ($4^5.4 million). — Efforts to de-
velop commercially acceptable, low-emission alternatives to the inter-
nal combustion engine. The major emphasis will be in the area of heat
engines, particularly the Rankine-cycle (steam) engine, but also in-
cluding the Brayton-cycle (gas turbine) and Stirling-cycle engine.
Also included will l>e efforts to develop prototypes of electrical engines
and to explore the potential of hybrid systems (combinations of two
engine systems).
3. Supporting renearch {$1S.2 million). — This encompasses research
in areas that have a bearing on motor vehicle pollution and its preven-
tion and control. Among them are atmospheiic chemistry, development
of needed instrumentation and sami)ling techniques, transportation
planning and urban design in relation to air quality, and fundamental
combustion research.
Clean Car Incentive Program
The Department of Health, Pklucation, and Welfare has estimated
that passenger care capable of meeting tlie following emission goals
•This Is a plan developed by NAPCA ; it is being reviewed by the Council on Environ-
mental Quality.
362
must be available by 1!)S() if the Nation is to make continued progress
in abating the problem of motor vehicle pollution :
Gratnx
per mile
Hydrocarbons 0. 25
Carbon monoxide 4. 7
NitrosPii <ixides 0. 4
Particulate matter 0. 03
If passenoei- cars propelled by internal combustion engines cannot
meet these goals, alternati\e propulsion systems will have to be avail-
able. Translating such new technology froui the design and prototype
stages into practical application is likely to take some yeai'S. Accord-
ingly, the necessary research and development must get underway
innnediately.
The Federal clean air incentive ]:>rogram is intended to stimulate
private-sector efforts in this field. To the extent that motor vehicles
developed through this program are pui'chased in quantity by govern-
mental agencies, such procurement could be expected to stinnilate and
lead to mass production.
In addition to being capable of meeting the above exhaust emission
goals, cars nuist also meet ijerfoi'mance, safety, durability, reliability,
maintenance, and ser\icing specifications in order to be eligible for
entry into the clean car program.
The program is designed in three i)hases intended to pi'ovide grad-
uated financial incentixes to piivate developers and to permit selection
of those low-pollntion passenger cars most likely to be siiitable.for
aeneral use:
1. Prototype ])hase. The developer of a veliicle snbmits techni-
cal data to the National Air Pollution Control Administration
(NAIXW). NAPCW will evaluate the data and, if testing of the
vehicle seems warranted, will mulertake such testing.
•2. Demonstration })hase. NAI*CA will purchase 10 models of the
vehicle for testing in \arions climates and under various operating
conditions for at least (> months.
;]. Fleet testing. Substantial numbers of the vehicle would l)e
tested for 1 to 2 years nnder actual operating conditions. To be
eligible for fleet testing, a \ehicle nuist be, in all resjiects, a pas-
senger cai- suitable for the uses ordinarilv made of such cars.
to
'>^^
Question 3. What data is <i raihihle on com plUince a^ith aato ewhsion.
stand (ti(h aftei' stdc by certified cehicJes^ Please provide tins data for
the recoid.
Answer. Data on the question of whether motor vehicles in the hands
of the i)ublic meet the P^ederal standards that were api)licable to them
at the time of their original sale have been develo))ed through the
National Air Pollution Control Administration's studies of rental car
fleets and the National Air Pollution Control Aduiinistration's sup-
ported studies by the California Air Eesources Board.
The first surveillance chita on cars subject to the Federal standards,
from the California surveillance program, were re])orted in the sum-
mer of IDGH. Since the cars were